Commons Sitting of 6 March 1896

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  BELFAST CORPORATION BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read;
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  MR.VESEYKNOXsaid, that in rising to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill he had in the first place to express his regret that it had become necessary to trouble the House in some little detail with the circumstances of the local affairs of some Ulster towns. He had made an appeal to certain hon. Members opposite in the hope that they might avoid that Debate. Unfortunately, they had refused any sort of terms, and it was therefore necessary to bring the whole matter before the House. He did not think it necessary to apologise to the House if he referred to this matter somewhat in detail, for after all the question involved was not a small one—it was a question of the deprivation of civil rights of a population who, in Belfast, Derry, and a few other Ulster towns, numbered over 100,000. It was true that these men had votes for Imperial purposes, but in the local affairs in which they were interested the Catholics had absolutely no power. On the First Reading of another Bill he referred to the analogy in the case of the Transvaal and in the case of the people of Johannesburg. Although they were denied votes for Imperial purposes, they had local votes, and he ventured to say there was no parallel in any part of the world to be found for the state of things he had to

  311
  disclose that day to the House. This Bill proposed to largely extend the boundary of the city of Belfast, and to redistribute the wards within the city. There were at present five wards, and the Bill proposed there should be fifteen wards. It also proposed to give largely-increased powers, which might be described as police and sanitary powers, and also borrowing, to the Belfast Corporation. The contention he had to bring before the House was that no Bill of this sort should be allowed to pass into law unless some provision was made in it for representation of the unrepresented minority of the people of Belfast. He admitted that that contention of his was that he could only support if he was able to show to fair-minded Members of the House on both sides that there exists in Belfast a very unusual state of things. Therefore, he would state the facts. According to the census of 1891 there were living in the Parliamentary boundary of Belfast 202,000 Protestants and 70,000 Catholics. The Catholics were, therefore, exactly almost one-fourth of the population, but yet they were not represented by even a single Member in the Corporation. This was not a chance matter. Since 1855, or ever since the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act, there had been only five Catholics as members of the Belfast Town Council, and they were allowed there on sufferance during excited days. There was not the slightest chance within the lifetime of any of the Catholics of Belfast of any of them getting into the Corporation. They lived as men who, on account of their religion, could have no hope of ever taking part in the municipal affairs of their city. He was not going to say anything against the City of Belfast. Its citizens might take pride in it as a great city, but the greater it was, so much greater was the deprivation of the Catholic minority, who could have no part or share in its municipal life. Not merely had this system of exclusion been carried out in regard to the membership of the Corporation, but it had been carried out in remorseless detail in reference to offices of emolument in the city. In fact, one would think the Test Acts had never been repealed. The Catholic officials received £290 a year in salaries,
  312
  while the Protestant officials received £18,467 per year. The same principle was observed even in regard to the rate collectors, for there was not a Catholic rate collector in Belfast. He did not want to labour the reasons for this state of things, but still he wanted to meet the objections which he knew would be raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They would say that the objection to give representation or any office to Catholics was not due to religious feeling but to political feeling; that the Catholics were not proscribed as Catholics, but because they happened to be Nationalists. Frankly, he could not credit that view. There were a few Catholic Unionists in Belfast, but they were very few. How was it that those men had been just as unfortunate as the Nationalist Catholics in failing to obtain any municipal representation? There were also a few Protestant Home Rulers in Belfast—not very active or violent, but still men who supported Nationalist candidates at elections, and these men were some of them members of the Belfast and Derry Corporations. Therefore, it was proved to demonstration that this exclusion was not an exclusion of Nationalists, but an exclusion of Catholics as Catholics. Before the last Hybrid Committee in 1892, on which he had the honour of sitting, representatives of the Belfast Corporation, one after another, admitted that under present circumstances there was no reason to expect that any Catholic could be returned to the Belfast Corporation, unless in some ward within the city there happened to be a majority of Catholic voters. This was peculiar and extraordinary, and ought to be removed. ["Hear, hear!"] They had the fact that 70,000 people had no hope of obtaining any share in their municipal life. Many attempts had been made to cure this state of things. In the years 1886 and 1887 an attempt was made to remedy it by extending the franchise in Belfast. It was thought necessary to give by private Bill an extension of the franchise such as had not been given in any other part of Ireland. This Act was passed in 1887, and it was undoubtedly the intention of Parliament by that Act to give the same franchise to Belfast as prevailed in English towns. But by the astuteness of the legal Gentlemen who represented

  313
  Belfast, they were able to get into that Act words which had not given so wide a suffrage as that given to other towns. This might be a small point, but Parliament ought to avail itself of this opportunity to correct it. But, even if that mistake were corrected, it would be impossible for the Catholics of Belfast to obtain a representation at all adequate to their numbers. This Bill proposed to create 15 wards, to be sketched out by a Commissioner who was to be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. That Commissioner might do his best to give the Catholics representation, but it would be impossible for him to so carve out the city as to secure to the Catholics more than one representative. Those who were acquainted with the city had worked out the Bill and come to the conclusion that one ward was all the Catholics could get. Now, one ware would give these people, who were one-fourth of the population, only one-fifteenth of the representation, and that would not be an adequate redress of their long-standing grievances. [''Hear, hear!"] Further, the system of ward representation might have one very unfortunate result. Formerly nine-tenths of the Catholics lived in one quarter of the city, but these circumstances had been recently changed, and it was most undesirable that the House should do anything to perpetuate a condition of things by which the people of one religion should be huddled together in any one part of the town. ["Hear, hear!"] He wished to lay before the House a proposal which he believed would relieve the people of Belfast, and at the same time would not conflict with any settled principle of our legislation. The only cure for this state of things was that they should introduce into Belfast the system of Cumulative Voting as applied in the English School Board Elections. [''Hear, hear!"] The Cumulative Vote had been demanded time after time in Belfast. This was the only way the Catholics could remedy their grievances, and it had been supported by various Conservative Ministers. So long ago as 1877 the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, moved an Amendment in Committee in favour of the adoption of the Cumulative Vote, and it
  314
  would be within the recollection of the House that in 1892 Mr. Balfour, in the Irish Local Government Bill, proposed that the Cumulative Vote should be applied for local purposes throughout the whole of Ireland. Therefore the two leading Ministers of the present Government had both supported the adoption of the Cumulative Vote system to Irish local affairs. It might be asked, how was this system to be applied to Belfast? His proposal was that the four parliamentary boroughs in the city of Belfast should be taken as the four wards. This would not destroy the ward system, and it would be possible with these four wards to get a full representation of all sections of the Belfast population. He thought it would even be possible to divide each of these four divisions into two, and still get a representation of all the people, but it was quite clear that if Parliament once adopted the system of 15 wards, they could not by any chance get a representation of all the people of Belfast. [Cheers.] Even supposing by a subsequent Act to this the Cumulative Vote was applied, it would be impossible for any minority less than one-third to obtain any representation in any ward. Consequently, if this House, by passing this Bill, adopted the system of 15 wards for Belfast, it would be impossible by any subsequent legislation to give a representation to the Belfast Catholic minority. This was his proposal. He did not ask the House to pledge itself to the details of the proposal; all he asked at this stage was that a Committee should be empowered to go into these matters and make provision, if it should think fit, for the adoption of the Cumulative Voting for the representation of the Belfast minority. He left it in that way in the absolute confidence that any Committee, though it might have a majority of Unionist Members in it, would, after inquiring into the facts, find that the case of the Catholic minority was a just one, and that their claim ought to be met. ["Hear, hear!"] This Bill ought not to be allowed to go to Second Beading until the House had made provision for the representation of the minority of Belfast.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now dealing with the instruction to the Committee which

  315
  he proposes to move later on. The question now before the House is the Second Reading of this Bill.
  MR. KNOXcontinuing, said, as the Bill now stood it made no provision at all for the representation of the Catholic minority. For his own part, he should be perfectly ready to see this system applied to Ireland everywhere, when occasion offered; but at the present moment there was no minority in any single town in the South of Ireland which was not reported at least up to its number. He quite admitted that, if the Franchise were extended, there might be such a minority. He would make this appeal to hon. Members opposite. They had said they would never desert their brethren in the South, and they had a chance now of helping them in a practical way, because, if they assented to the application of this principle in the North of Ireland towns, it would be quite impossible for any Government Members sitting on his side of the House to object to the application of the same principle in the southern towns so soon as the Franchise was extended. He did not like to speak on behalf of his friends in this matter; but if any of them did oppose such application after Parliament had applied it to the northern towns, their contention would be so hopeless that it would never be listened to by the vast majority in the House. For himself, he had no doubt if this was done for the northern Catholics, they would be ready to give at least the same advantage when the occasion arose to the southern Protestants. Therefore, he asked them to seize this as an opportunity of doing justice to their southern brethren while they were doing justice to the northern Catholics. In brief, his contention was that this Bill was not one which the House should pass unless it saw its way to make provision by some system for the representation of the now unrepresented Catholics in the North. He admitted that the proposal to do this by a private Bill was a novelty, but the circumstances of Belfast were novel. He brought forward this proposal with the more confidence because he believed it was the general feeling among a large section of the Protestants of Belfast that this occasion ought to be embraced in order to make the change which he had suggested. The
  316
  hon. Member for North Belfast was a leading member of the Belfast Corporation, and he would remember that when the proposal to insert the Cumulative Vote in this Bill was brought before the——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now transgressing the ruling. This is an argument for the Instruction, which is not now before the House.
  MR. KNOXsaid, his contention was that there was actually a large proportion of the Belfast Corporation who wished to have the Bill amended as he suggested, and that that was a reason why the House should not pass the Second Reading in its present form.
  MR. SPEAKER: That would be a ground for arguing every possible Amendment to a Bill on a Motion for the Second Reading, however many Amendments were on the Notice Paper.
  MR. KNOXsaid, he would reserve that point until afterwards. He would only say at present that this was a matter in which a large section of the Protestant people of Belfast were of the same opinion as himself, and the hon. Member for North Belfast found the other day, by the very small majority by which he was returned to this House, that a large section of the Protestants of Belfast did not think as he did on this question. Reserving, until the subsequent Motion, what he had to say on the details of this proposal, he would, in the meantime, ask the House not to pass the Second Reading unless they had some assurance from those in charge of the Bill that no opposition would be offered to the just proposal he was going to lay before the House. He begged to move that the Bill be read this day six months.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDformally seconded the Motion.
  SIR JAMES HASLETTsaid, it was usual when opposing the Second Reading of a Bill to deal with the Bill itself. The opposition here had been directed exclusively against minors or other matters connected with the Franchise that might fairly be dealt with in connection with the Instruction. The Bill in its simplicity was a Bill simply to extend the borough of Belfast. That extension had been rendered necessary by the unprecedented growth of the

  317
  city. It was not a question that the Corporation of Belfast had dealt lightly with or for Party purposes. It was a question forced upon them by the growth of the city.

  ROYAL COMMISSION.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners by Black Rod;—
  The House went;—and, having returned;—
  MR. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to the Local Government (Elections) Act, 1896.
  SIR JAMES HASLETT,resuming his speech, said, the main features of this Bill were to provide an extended area under the municipal Government in connection with Belfast. He thought Members of that House would surely see the necessity of that when he told them that since the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act of 1843 Belfast had risen from a valuation of £135,000 to £915,000 at the present time, a progress without parallel in the United Kingdom. It had risen in that time from being a comparative village to be the third town in the Empire in respect to its contributions to Imperial Revenue. Therefore, Belfast needed to look very carefully not only to the machinery by which it should be guided in the general management of its city affairs, but that such surroundings should not be created as would involve loss to the Corporation hereafter, when they were obliged to extend their area. They must look beforehand in order to give Belfast its proper provision and supervision. The extended area, with only one very small exception, covered the Parliamentary area, and that small exception was towards the village of Newtonbreda, and in that direction, owing to very large buildings, they had been obliged to depart to some extent from the Parliamentary area. With regard to the point that had been raised by the hon. Member for Derry, that Roman Catholics had no representation on the Corporation, he was quite free to say that Roman Catholics did not form any portion of the Corporation, but to say they were deprived of their rights was a mistake. They had the same Franchise—and that
  318
  the lowest in Ireland—as their Protestant fellow-citizens, and if they were not able to return Members it was because of the paucity of their numbers. The Franchise was not to blame, neither was their religion. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "Gerrymandering!"] There was no gerrymandering, but there was in the fixing of the Parliamentary area, and it took eight years to rectify that. With regard to the question of representation, the votes under the Parliamentary Franchise were 40,189, and under the Municipal Franchise 39,814.
  MR. KNOX: That is including women.
  SIR JAMES HASLETT: Yes, including women, and they hoped that the Parliamentary Franchise would also include them in the future. They were not, therefore, at all in the position pictured by the hon. Member for Derry, as not having given the smallest occupants in Belfast a reasonable interest in the Franchise. There had been no objection to the value of the Bill or its merits, and he took it, therefore, the Second Reading was practically without opposition. [Cries of "No!"] Then the opposition would come upon the instructions, and upon those instructions he would be prepared to give the House the information of which they had been deprived by the circular quoted by the hon. Member for Derry. The only point that had been made bearing upon the Second Reading to which he thought it necessary to reply was that Protestant Home Rulers had been elected to the Corporation, and that therefore, as a necessary conclusion, the opposition was to Catholics as Catholics. It was just a pity that the premises of the hon. Gentleman were wrong, because his conclusions consequently fell to the ground. There were no Protestant Home Rulers in the Corporation. There were Liberal Unionists, and they were delighted to see them, but there were no Protestant Home Ruler members of the Corporation. Indeed the quantity of that particular article in Belfast would not fill a very large room. There were some it was true, but when they got such an article hon. Members opposite were prepared to deify and canonise them. He claimed that the Bill, if read carefully by hon. Members, would be found to

  319
  supply a needed want so far as the growth of the city of Belfast was concerned.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he should like to say one or two words on the general principle of the Bill. The hon. Member opposite (Sir James Haslett) said that there was gerrymandering in 1885. This Bill in its essence sprang out of gerrymandering, and it was the result of the compact of 1885—the unfortunate compact between Lord Salisbury and the hon. Baronet below the Gangway, the Member for the Forest of Dean, and the Bill, so far from being a reasonable Bill in its general essence, was the result of the unfortunate abortion of ten years ago. This was a Bill that proposed to extend the Municipal boundary of Belfast to the Parliamentary area—the sham Parliamentary area which was invented by Lord Salisbury in 1885 for the purpose of securing four Members for Belfast to which it was not entitled at the time, and for the purpose of putting it upon a level with Dublin, which was entitled to four Members. Let anyone turn to the Parliamentary Franchise Bill of 1885, and what did he find? There was then a combination between, the Tory Party and the House of Lords, led by Lord Salisbury, and the Liberal Party of that day. The whole proposal of Lord Salisbury was that under his scheme Dublin would be entitled to four Members, so Belfast should get four Members, and everybody then asked, ''But how?'' Upon what scheme of representation of figures would Belfast in 1885—the real Belfast—be entitled to four Members? Lord Salisbury, having called over the astute Gentleman who still manipulated affairs in Belfast, his (Mr. Healy's) friend, the distinguished Orange Coroner for the borough, who managed the affairs of the North of Ireland at that time with great success and astuteness for the Tory Party—having called Mr. Finnegan into council, they decided to invent an area with a certain population which would entitle Belfast to four Members, and accordingly made the compact of that day. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, who was then in charge of the Parliamentary Distribution Bill, forced this scheme of Ulster representation down the throats of the Irish Members,
  320
  and refused to assent to any compromise or condition whatever, so as to give the Nationalists their fair representation in the North of Ireland; and having done that, they appointed three or four gentlemen to revise the lists in the North of Ireland, which gave the Tory Party something like three Members more than they were actually entitled to; and it was therefore out of this abortion, out of which originally sprang four Members for the Borough of Belfast, that they were afflicted there that day with this Bill, which was a proposal to extend the Municipal area to the confines of the Parliamentary Borough as settled in 1885. It was natural, when the House proposed to give a Parliamentary area to the borough of Belfast, those gerrymandered out of their rights in a Parliamentary sense should see that this Bill did not put into the hands of the Orange Party in Belfast more power than they were entitled to. The Member for North Belfast had stated that there was no opposition to the main principles of the Bill. But he himself held that the Bill in its main principles was a vicious Bill, and he would tell the House why. It was vicious because it proposed to do by means of private Bill legislation what had hitherto been the part of public Bill legislation. There were remarkable facts in connection with private Bill legislation in Belfast which he had never been able to account for. In 1887, a Bill was brought in to give the Municipal Franchise to the whole of Ireland. The late Sir James Corry moved to confine it to Belfast, and this was adopted by the Tory Party of the day. The Act, instead of being placed with public Acts in the records of the House, was placed among the local and personal Acts of Belfast. Having got that into the category of local and personal Acts, it was proposed to extend the principle of local and personal Statutes relating to public improvements to other objects. The criminal jurisdiction of the City of Belfast was affected by this Bill. Belfast was not a county but a city. Its jurisdiction had been divided between Antrim and Down, but this Bill actually proposed to alter the juries, and the places where criminals should be tried. A man who committed crime might be tried in Down or Antrim, but under this Bill the venue was changed. It was a

  321
  strange thing to make a change of venue by a private Act, and he believed it had been ruled in this House in former days that an attempt to change criminal venue was fatal to a private Bill, and he believed this had been the means of procuring the rejection of a private Bill. The Recorder of Belfast was formerly an officer of the Corporation. Now he was appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. There was a separate County Court district for Down and Antrim. The County Court Judge for Antrim was a Catholic, and his district was by this Bill curtailed, and part of his jurisdiction conferred on the Protestant Recorder of Belfast. In London, the extension by the County Council of its jurisdiction into the ancient jurisdiction of the City of London had often been before the public. The Members from Ireland were just as jealous of proposed extensions of jurisdiction in regard to Belfast. In the City of London the people were largely of one denomination and one way of thinking in politics; but in Belfast there were wide differences in both respects. If a Bill like this were once carried and criminal jurisdiction could be extended by means of a private Bill, the whole of the powers of the City of London might be swept away by a private Bill. Either the present Speaker or his predecessor ruled only a year ago that the Bill introduced by the County Council as a private Bill was so wide in its terms that he could not put it as a private Bill. [Nationalist cheers.] What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. He would not liken Belfast to a goose; he would rather liken it to a more astute bird. He asked for precedents to be produced for carrying out the objects he had described in a private Bill. On what ground had the Irish Office consented to this Bill? In Dublin they had tried for many years to get a Bill to extend the city boundaries by taking in Rathmines, Rathgar, Kilmainham, Pembroke, and the surrounding districts. Who opposed the Bill but the Orange Members in the House? The City of Dublin had to spend half a million of money on main drainage. The taxpayers of Dublin were compelled to bear the burden of this, while the benefit of it would be reaped by the surrounding townships, while not a shilling of taxation
  322
  would fall upon them. The taxpayers of Dublin had to submit to this sort of thing, while the rates of Belfast were extended into the surrounding county. Extensions of city boundaries should be considered by a duly-authorised body. Reforms for Orange towns were assisted, but refused to Nationalist towns in Ireland. He asked for some explanation of the 55th Clause of the Bill, which provided that the resident magistrate for the City of Belfast should have all the powers and jurisdiction which by any Acts of Parliament were conferred upon stipendiary magistrates in Ireland. Why had no explanation been given for this proposal? He denounced it as a deliberate return to the viciousness of old times. It had been found necessary after the riots of 1864 to take away the control of the police of Belfast out of the hands of the Corporation, and now he saw that they proposed in the Bill before the House to bribe the officers of the police force in Belfast by augmenting their salaries. A sum of £500 was to be set apart for the purpose every year. If the Town Inspector of Belfast and the District Superintendents were entitled to have their salaries raised, let it be done, in the usual way, as the Royal Constabulary were paid everywhere. Why should the Corporation of Belfast seek to earmark every year £500 of the ratepayers' money for the purpose of bribing, if that could be done, the Royal Irish Constabulary? They were perhaps the only police in any country in the world that refused tips of any kind—[laughter]; and he did not think that the Royal Irish Constabulary would favour this special contribution towards giving the Corporation of Belfast a hold upon them in that city. He regarded it as an attempt on the part of the Corporation to nobble the police. The constabulary were the people to whom the Catholics of Belfast looked for fair play on the 12th July and other days, and if the salaries of the inspectors were to be augmented by £100 or £500, according as they had won the favour of the Orange Corporation, then God help the Catholics. ["Hear, hear!"] He was amazed that Her Majesty's Government should have assented to a proposition of that kind. If the Constabulary Inspectors were ill-paid it was the duty

  323
  of the Government to make provision for the augmentation of their salaries in the Estimates. He observed the remarkable fact that no sooner did the Chief Secretary get into office than he immediately removed the Catholic resident magistrate, Mr. Gerald Griffin, from Antrim, doubtless at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Antrim, who was now Secretary to the Admiralty. [Mr. MACARTNEY laughed.] Such were the shifts and dodges and devices by which the Orange party hoped to smuggle a private Bill of this kind through the House. There was one other proposal in the Bill which had no business to appear in a private Measure, and that was the abolition of the two assessors who hitherto—with the Mayor, who did not interfere except in a division of opinion—prepared the burgess list. Now the Lord Mayor was to do it alone, without assessors, and so the Catholics of Belfast would have no representative when the burgess lists were being made out. In fact, the brand of the Orange lodges was in every clause of the Bill. Then there was a proposal to regulate the traffic of bicycles, which he thought should be dealt with by the public general law. There were two other provisions to which he objected as proposals that ought not to be embodied in a private Bill. Under the pretence of stopping street betting, the Bill would confer powers that might be used against persons who were obnoxious but were not betting. It was provided that persons assembled in a street for the purpose of betting were to be deemed to be causing an obstruction, and they were to be liable to a penalty not exceeding 40s.; and, further, a policeman might arrest, without a warrant, a person who committed the offence in view of such officer. That was a most discreditable imputation on the intelligence of Belfast sportsmen. [Laughter.] It was desirable that betting should be put down, particularly betting in the streets, and also at the Jockey Club and places of that kind. ["Hear hear!" and laughter.] Yet he thought this provision was an infringement of the rights of the public which ought not to find place not only in a private Bill but in a public Bill. Another provision of the Bill to which he objected was one referring to the use
  324
  and regulation of cycles, and preventing any nuisance or danger caused by the same. If the use of cycles was to be dealt with, he maintained it should be in a public Bill. He strongly objected to this system of smuggling into a private Bill provisions which might be used obnoxiously, and which would probably be followed by other Corporations. Taking the Bill as a whole, he asserted that what was good in it should have a place in a public Act, and that what was bad in it should not find a place in any kind of Act. [Irish cheers.]
  MR. G. MURNAGHANsaid that, as a Member coming from the very heart of Ulster he desired to say a few words. They had been told by one of the promoters of this Bill that no opposition to it came from the Catholics of Belfast. Did the hon. Member remember the opposition of the Catholic Bishop of the Diocese and the thousands who gathered round him to protest against it? Did he count it no opposition that the Catholics all over the city strongly protested against it? Perhaps hon. Members opposite thought that the opposition came only from the hewers of wood and drawers of water, and that, therefore, it was not worth taking into account. But he might tell them that the Catholic people of Belfast generally were strongly opposed to this Bill, and these included many men of substance, influence and high standing. He asserted there, in the presence of Englishmen, that his co-religionists were not the despicable set they were represented to be. He thought the Government should have watched the Bill with greater care, and should not have allowed a Corporation like that of Belfast to have proceeded even so far with the Bill—a Corporation with a record that had made it notorious all over the world for its intolerance and bigotry. ["No, no!" and Nationalist cheers.] He protested against this Bill on behalf of the Catholics of Belfast, who were most industrious people, who tried to get along, but were crushed at every step, and kept out of representative positions. The Catholics wanted to see fair play and fair treatment meted out to all classes, and he would be anxious to see now whether the promises of fair treatment made in many quarters at the last General

  325
  Election would be kept. The Catholics of Belfast viewed this Bill with alarm, and looked upon it as an attempt to seriously encroach on their privileges, if, indeed, they ever had any privileges.
  MR. S. YOUNGsaid, he claimed to speak, not as representing Belfast, but as being a native of the city and knowing the inhabitants well. He was not a Catholic, and therefore was free to speak impartially on these affairs. He knew there was a strong feeling in Belfast against the Catholic population, and there had always been such a feeling as long as he could remember. There were some 72,000 Catholic inhabitants of Belfast, many of them in high positions and men of great responsibility, who were systematically excluded from all civil dignities in the town. Therefore this Bill ought strongly to be opposed unless the Corporation would make some concession to this large and respectable minority in the town. Now was the time to have provisions put into this Bill which would give fair play to the Catholic inhabitants of Belfast. He did not commit himself to the system of cumulative voting, but there were exceptional cases in which it should be adopted, and, if there was one more than any other, that place was Belfast. He strongly opposed this Bill unless the concession was made that cumulative voting should be adopted. The Government had had to adopt exceptional measures before for Belfast. The Government took from the Corporation the police, and made them a national force. Then, when the Main Drainage Bill was passing through the House, the Municipal and Parliamentary Franchises were equalised. So that in other cases the Government had adopted exceptional measures to keep in check the feelings which dominated Belfast, and now, unless something of the same exceptional nature was done with regard to this Bill, he for one should oppose it.
  MR. JOHN DILLONsaid, the hon. Member for North Belfast, in a portion of his speech, made some very extraordinary statements. He stated he never heard a Bill more weakly opposed or with less show of reason. He might be pardoned for telling the hon. Member that opinion on that side of the House was exactly the reverse. What did the hon. Member say? In the
  326
  course of his speech he did not bring forward a single argument in favour of this Bill, nor did he give any evidence that the people of Belfast were in favour of it. Indeed, he would prove in a few moments that a very large body of the people of Belfast were opposed to the Bill. The hon. Member for North Belfast made one statement so extraordinary that he thought he was right in fixing the attention of the House upon it. The hon. Member denied that, under present arrangements, or under this Bill, if it should pass into law, the Catholics of Belfast would be denied representation, and he proceeded to explain to the House what he meant by representation. The hon. Member used these words—for he took them down at the time—
  "If they (meaning the Catholics of Belfast) are unable to return Members to the Corporation, it is owing to the paucity of their numbers."
  What did that mean? It meant that, so far as the hon. Member and those who act with him are concerned, so long as the Catholics of Belfast are in a minority, no Catholic will ever be allowed into the Belfast Corporation. That was the reason of the strong opposition to this Bill, and it was also due to the fact that, not only in the city of Belfast, but in the city of Derry, the proscription of Catholics has prevailed for years and years, the like of which could not be paralled in any part of the civilised world. [Nationalist cheers.] In his attempt to justify this Bill, the hon. Member said, that the Catholics could not enter the Corporation because of the paucity of their numbers, thereby laying down the general principle that, until they were in a majority they could not expect to become members of the Corporation. Was there any other city in the whole of the United Kingdom which would not feel ashamed if one of its members made such a declaration? [Nationalist cheers.] Take the case of the city of London, where the Catholics might be said to be only a handful of the population, and yet only a few years ago London had its Catholic Lord Mayor. [Nationalist and Liberal cheers.] But in the city of Belfast, where the Catholic population was one-fourth of the whole, this abominable system of religious bigotry and proscription, which happily had no place in any other part of

  327
  the Kingdom, prevailed in full swing, and the hon. Member for Belfast declared that he and his friends intended to adhere to it. No Catholic, they were informed by the hon. Member for North Belfast, was to be admitted into the sacred chamber until they could get in there by the fact of superior numbers. If that principle had been applied in Waterford, or Limerick, or Cork, or Dublin, how the House of Commons would have rung with denunciations of the Roman Catholics! If, to-day, the Nationalist Members claimed exceptional legislation for Belfast, it was because for generations a system of proscription had been carried on, the like of which did not exist in any other city in the United Kingdom. In the city of Dublin, although there the majority of the Roman Catholics over the Protestants was far greater than that of the Protestants over the Roman Catholics in Belfast, the Protestants had had more than their fair share of representation in proportion to their numbers.
  MR. G. W. WOLFF: They were elected.
  MR. DILLON: Yes, because the Catholics of Dublin were not bigoted like the Protestants. In Dublin they did not ask a man, when he came up for a city office, what creed he professed. Very often Protestants were elected to offices because of their qualifications; but, unfortunately, in Belfast there existed a system of bigotry and intolerance, naked and unashamed, which had over and over again been dragged on to the Floor of the House, and compelled the House to apply exceptional legislation to the city of Belfast. The Catholic people of Belfast had, by a deliberate and long-continued system, been excluded from a reasonable share in municipal government.
  SIR J. HASLETT: I distinctly deny the hon. Gentleman's statements. I have said that a Roman Catholic is not proscribed as a Roman Catholic, but as a Nationalist.
  MR. DILLONdid not think the hon. Gentleman had very much improved his position. He took down the hon. Gentleman's words, and he said:—
  "If the Roman Catholics cannot elect representatives, it is because of the paucity of their numbers."
  328
  Was not that proscribing Roman Catholics? Did not that mean that a Roman Catholic would not be elected except where there was a majority of Roman Catholics. The hon. Member only gave expression in that language to a settled practice. That was the reason why the Nationalists made this strong complaint. He was prepared to admit that there would have been some force in the hon. Gentleman's argument if they had been dealing with any other community; but, in view of the fact that they were dealing with Belfast, a community which time after time had been the object of exceptional legislation, he contended that the arguments of the hon. Gentleman entirely fell to the ground. In 1865——
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: May I ask, Sir, if this line of argument is relevant to the Second Reading of this Bill?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is difficult for me to say how far the provisions in the Bill for the extension of the boundaries and the division of wards affect the Roman Catholics.
  MR. DILLONthought that in a few moments it would become perfectly manifest that these arguments were relevant, because the Bill proposed to bring a large population under the power of the Corporation. If the Bill passed into law, a large section of the county of Down would be brought within this iniquitous system. In 1865, on the recommendation of a Royal Commission, the House of Commons abolished the borough police of Belfast, which at that time was under the control of the Corporation, in consequence of its partial administration, and brought in the Royal Irish Constabulary. Again in 1887——
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is now going into historical matter which does not bear on the Second Reading of this Bill.
  MR. DILLONsaid he would not pursue that line any further, and would now turn to the Bill itself. Many of the provisions of the Bill were bad, but it was unnecessary to go through them at length. Clause 54 was a most extraordinary clause, and, in order to understand its intention, he must refer again to the fact that in 1865 Parliament, acting on the recommendation of a Royal Commission, took away the police from the Corporation and introduced the

  329
  constabulary. Clause 54 provided that it should be lawful for the Council, if they thought fit in each year, after the passing of the Bill, to contribute a sum not exceeding £500, to be applied in augmenting the salaries of the town inspector and the district inspectors of the constabulary force employed in the city. What was the meaning of that? That whenever a riot broke out, if the constabulary supported the Protestants they would get this £500. Year by year the conduct of the constabulary was to be surveyed by a Corporation which the House had on a former occasion declared to be unfit to deal with the police. Nobody doubted that one of the horrible and inevitable results of this system of proscription and religious bigotry had been the perpetuation of those scandalous and atrocious riots which were the disgrace of Belfast. For his part he held that to sanction this Clause 54 would undo the work of Parliament in 1865. He wanted also some explanation of certain other provisions of the Bill which appeared to him extraordinary and quite outside the scope of a private Bill. Clause 55 provided that from and after the passing of the Act a resident magistrate in Belfast should have all the powers and jurisdiction which were conferred on stipendiary magistrates in Ireland, and a barrister should not be deemed to have retired from practice by reason of his having held the office of resident magistrate. He wanted to know what the full bearing and scope of the section would be; he did not understand himself what it meant.
  SIR J. HASLETTsaid that the meaning of the clause was that under a recent decision the resident magistrate could not deal alone with a case of a dual character. If a man was charged with being drunk a resident magistrate could try him as a justice of peace; but if he was charged with being drunk and disorderly he could not try him alone. There must be a second magistrate on the Bench with him, whereas a stipendiary magistrate in Dublin could try him alone.
  MR. DILLONwished to know the full bearing of the clause. Would the hon. Member kindly explain the meaning of the second paragraph of the clause, "a barrister at law shall not be
  330
  deemed to have retired from practice by reason of his being appointed a resident magistrate"?
  SIR J. HASLETTexplained that at present if a barrister was once appointed, even temporarily, he could not again practice as a barrister.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! These details are clearly more appropriate for discussion in Committee than for discussion at the present stage.
  MR. DILLONobserved that it was not known that they would ever get into Committee on this Bill. It was undoubtedly extremely inconvenient that there should be introduced in a private Bill of this kind, clauses of an ambiguous character relating to the administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland. If an attempt was to be made to tamper with the magistracy of Belfast, it ought to be made in a public Bill. The system of removable magistrates was not without advantages in Belfast, for such magistrates were at any rate independent of local opinion, and could act against it. If a resident magistrate was to be allowed to practice at the Bar at Belfast, after his retirement from the magistracy that circumstance might seriously affect his conduct. If there had been nothing suspicious about the provisions relating to this matter, they would have been introduced in a public Bill. He objected to this Measure on its merits. The hon. Member for North Belfast had treated the House with contempt, and said nothing in favour of this legislation which was opposed by five-sixths of the representatives of Ireland and by a large section of the population of Belfast.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, that the really important points for discussion would arise upon the instructions which were to be moved and which, he admitted, were open to great differences of opinion. This was a perfectly ordinary Municipal Bill promoted in good faith by the city of Belfast. As to the points raised by the hon. Members for North Louth, and East Mayo, he thought they were matters for discussion in Committee. Many hon. Members had thought fit to attack the Corporation of Belfast. That city contained 270,000 inhabitants and enjoyed the lowest franchise for municipal

  331
  purposes in Ireland. What hon. Members below the Gangway opposite wanted to do, was to punish Belfast for acting the part which it had acted during the last 10 years. The House was asked to punish Belfast for not having done as Limerick, Cork, and Tipperary had done. It was asked to force upon Belfast a yoke which there was no intention of applying to any other part of the United Kingdom. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth had suggested that it would be an infraction of the Constitutional principle to extend the jurisdiction of the borough magistrates of Belfast in accordance with the extension of the borough. The hon. and learned Member was in error, for whenever borough boundaries were enlarged, the jurisdiction of the magistrates was enlarged pari passu. The borough jurisdiction took the place of the county jurisdiction in such cases. Complaint had been made that the changes which this Measure would effect were not matters which ought to be dealt with in a private Bill. There was, however, a precedent of direct application in the Bill for the Amendment of the Municipal Franchise in Belfast which was promoted by Mr. Sexton some years ago. That was a case where it was proposed to effect a great change by means of a private Bill. But his main point was that if Belfast was to be punished for what it had done, what was its offence? It was complained that there were not more Roman Catholics on the Corporation of Belfast. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: ''None!''] Now he was there to say that as far as his own private judgment in this matter went, he would be glad to see more Catholic representation in Belfast. But this was not a matter which they could force upon people. They had no right to take the people of Belfast by the scruff of the neck and say what they should do in the matter. They had a fair and open election in the city of Belfast, and the members of the Corporation were elected on the lowest franchise. He quite agreed that they might all wish to see greater reciprocity between two parties, but it was not for that House to grant this great power of free election and then to take away that power by compelling the people to exercise it in a particular way. No one could pretend that
  332
  the admission of a certain number of Roman Catholics to the Corporation of Belfast would improve the government of the city. Limerick was a badly governed disloyal place, and it had been made what it was by the Roman Catholic Corporation and their officers. Naturally the ratepayers and electors of Belfast were not tempted to follow the example of Limerick and kindred towns. Was Belfast to be compelled to do what no one suggested that London, Liverpool or Glasgow ought to be forced to do? He was precluded from speaking on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derry city; but he might say that he had always been a supporter of the principle which the hon. Member advocated, and that if he were to see that principle embodied in a tentative measure applying not only to Belfast, but to the whole of the United Kingdom, he should be ready to consider the Motion fairly. What he objected to, and what he hoped the House would object, to was the selection of Belfast for punishment. Belfast did not deserve the treatment for which hon. Members opposite desired the sanction of the House. He did not advocate the continuance of the distinction which existed between parties in Belfast, but the fact remained that the difference was a political one, sharp and clearly defined; and he had yet to learn that there was a recognised duty on the part of electors to elect persons whom they did not consider representative of their opinions. They did not propose any re-division of the Belfast Commissioners, and he submitted that it was a monstrous thing to prefer a charge of gerrymandering when all that was asked was that a subdivision of the wards should be made by an independent authority. They were doing what was being done by every other corporation in the United Kingdom in similar circumstances.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that it had been left to the hon. Gentleman to import a good deal of sweetness and light into the discussion. The hon. Member for North Belfast was of opinion that Roman Catholics ought not to be admitted to the Corporation of Belfast because they were Roman Catholics. But the hon. Member for West Belfast carried the principle a little further, for he thought that in no municipality in Ireland

  333
  should any Roman Catholic be admitted. The hon. Member said that the destruction of Limerick was to be attributed to the fact that the Corporation happened to consist of Roman Catholics. He drew the conclusion from this that if a Roman Catholic Corporation brought destruction upon a community, every Roman Catholic ought to be excluded. That was the message of peace, of sweetness and light which the hon. Member had characteristically introduced into the discussion. His hon. Friends who had spoken were entitled to lay stress on the exceptional character of some of the clauses of this Bill. It was all very well for the hon. Member to say that the magistracy and the police were simple matters, but they affected the lives of the Roman Catholics in Belfast. What was the position of Belfast? He was anxious to recognise the great services rendered to Ireland by that city, but the blot upon its escutcheon was that alone among the cities of the Empire it was periodically visited by hideous religious riots, in nearly every case provoked by the Protestant majority. ["No, no!" from Mr. Wolff.] The hon. Member had himself to go down to his own workmen and to tell them that they were doing their best to bring Home Rule to Ireland by the Protestant intolerance being shown to the Roman Catholics.
  MR. WOLFF: I objected to the statement that the riots in Belfast on all occasions had been fomented by the Protestant majority.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, they were getting far away from the question. The subject was not the Belfast riots.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that the relevancy of his incidental reference to these riots was this, that in a city that was periodically visited by religious riots the control of the police was an important consideration; and therefore the Irish Members were entitled to scrutinise vigilantly and carefully every arrangement in regard to the police management of Belfast in a Bill like this. What was the proposal of the Bill? The police of Ireland were distinguished above all other police forces by their high sense of honour, but it was proposed in the Bill that the police, who ought to be a National force, should be made subject to local authority by local
  334
  subsidy. That was a vicious principle; and if there was a city in which it ought not to be introduced it was the city of Belfast. There was something more than the fate of this Bill at issue in this Debate. He thought that the policy of the Party opposite was at issue. This Unionist Parliament had been elected on the principle that it could render more equal and impartial justice to every class of Irishmen than the Parliament sitting in College Green. The second principle on which it was elected was that, stopping short of a Parliament in College Green, it was ready to extend to Ireland every right and privilege given to Englishmen in this country. The astonishing fact was, however, that the city of Belfast was entirely unrepresented by any state of things prevailing among people in this country, or any state of things represented by Irishmen here. In the Scotland division of Liverpool, for example, there was a large Irish population. The hon. Member for West Belfast spoke of a large Welsh population in Liverpool, and asked whether the House would order electors in Liverpool to elect Welshmen to the Corporation. Among the most prominent Members of the Corporation a year or two ago, a Welshman was the Lord Mayor, and if anyone had got up and had made the statements with regard to Welsh Nonconformists which the hon. Member had made with regard to Irish Roman Catholics, he would be hooted out of Liverpool even by the Tory Orangemen. Did the bitterest Orangeman in Liverpool contend that a man should be excluded from the Corporation because he was a Roman Catholic? Among the Councillors in Liverpool were a number of Roman Catholics, and in Manchester a number of Irish Roman Catholics and Irish Nationalists were members of the Corporation. The President of one of the branches of the National League in Bradford was a local Councillor; all over England Irishmen and Roman Catholics were elected by Englishmen and Protestants to places on the Corporations. He asked this Unionist Government to render as much justice to Roman Catholics in Ireland as they were willing to render to people in England. They at least should get as much justice in the land of their birth as in the land of the stranger. It was said that the franchise

  335
  in Belfast was low, and therefore the Roman Catholics were properly treated. But the franchise was one of the means towards controlling elections. Had hon. Gentlemen every heard of gerrymandering, or the artificial arrangement of districts resulting in a certain body always remaining in the minority? In Belfast the distribution took place in such a manner that the Roman Catholics there always remained in the minority; and thus, in this great city, with 40 members of a Corporation, not a single Roman Catholic found a place. The Unionist Government was on its trial, and so was the Unionist Party. It was somewhat remarkable that on a Bill of this importance, involving principles of such magnitude, the representative of the Government should sit silent.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDon a point of order asked whether this was a Measure which ought to be proceeded with by means of a private Bill. There were a large number of precedents, but the last was as recent as February, 1895, when Mr. Speaker Peel was in the Chair. The question under consideration was the London Valuation and Assessment Bill, and the point of order was raised by Sir Henry James. On that occasion Mr. Speaker Peel laid it down that, looking at the magnitude of the area and the interests involved, looking to the fact that a new jurisdiction and a new Court of Record were sought to be created, it would be unwise and improper to introduce it as a private Bill. He asked whether, seeing that the present Bill dealt with very large interests and embraced a very large area, and also repeated important sections in certain public Acts, it was properly introduced as a private Bill?
  MR. SPEAKER: It appears to me that this Bill is properly introduced as a private Bill—that is to say, the clauses relating to public matters are not so great in number or importance as to make it necessary to introduce it as a public Bill. It always is a question of degree whether the quantity of matter bearing on public Acts is such as to make it necessary to bring in the whole Bill as a public Bill. I have no doubt the decision of my predecessor, Mr. Speaker Peel, was perfectly right on the facts which were before him in the case to which the hon. Member has called
  336
  attention. Applying the general principle to the Bill before the House it seems to me that, although it does refer, as many private Bills do, to some public matter, and seeks to enact that some public statutes shall not apply or shall be partially repealed, nevertheless there is nothing in it to prevent its being properly brought in as a private Bill.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, that though he had listened with attention to the Debate, it had not been his purpose to intervene, but for the pointed appeal which had been made to him by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). The hon. Member had said the credit of the Unionist Government was at stake in connection with the Vote which they were now about to take. It would be difficult to imagine a more exaggerated statement. In the first place the Government had no interest in this Bill at all, one way or the other. The hon. and learned Member for Louth seemed to think the Government was responsible not only for the Bill as a whole, but for every detail of it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Irish office is or ought to be Nationalist. [Cheers.]
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Irish Office is not responsible for this Bill, and ought not to be responsible. The Government is less.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is not the Irish Office always consulted and bound to express its approval or disapproval on Irish private Bills?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I believe not. [Cries of "Oh!" from the Nationalist Benches.]
  MR. CLANCY: You have a good deal to learn then.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In any case the questions which are raised on the Bill ought properly to be decided in Committee, and do not involve the fate of the Second Reading. The House was not called upon to decide the merits of the different clauses, but simply whether this Bill was or was not so incurably vicious that the Committee to which it was proposed to be referred could not adequately and properly deal with it. It had been represented that the Bill would do an injustice to the Catholics of Belfast, that it encroached on their rights. But the House had

  337
  also been told that the Catholics had no representation whatever in the Corporation of Belfast. It was generally admitted that under this Bill they would get, if not an adequate, at least some representation. [Cries of "No, no!"] Now then, how could it be argued with any plausibility that this Bill took away from the Catholic voters of Belfast rights which they at present did not possess? This general question was one which would undoubtedly be much more fully discussed when they came to consider the instruction which the hon. Member for Derry (Mr. Knox) had upon the Paper. For the present it was clear that no grounds so far had been shown why the House should reject the Bill on the Second Reading. The hon. and learned Member for Louth had taken a variety of classes and pointed out objections to them; the essence of his objections being that the provisions in question would be more properly brought forward in a public than a private Bill. It was unnecessary for him to go into that, but he should appeal to the House, after the somewhat lengthened discussion which had taken place, to come to the Second Reading and leave these matters of detail to be dealt with by the Committee.
  MR. J. DALYsaid, that from the speech to which the House had just listened, he thought they had been coolly treated by Her Majesty's Government. Allusion had been made in the course of the Debate by the hon. Member for North Belfast to the difficulty that had been experienced in rectifying the boundaries of the Parliamentary divisions of that city. How had it been done? By giving no Catholic a house in West Belfast, by making new streets and stocking them with outlanders. ["Hear, hear!"] The fact that this Bill had been prepared by Sir Samuel Black, made him look upon it with a good deal of suspicion. In 1864, before the control of the police was taken away from the Belfast Corporation, of the 160 members of the force in the town there were but five Catholics, and Sir Samuel Black had stated at a Government Inquiry that he would know a man's religion by his face. As an example of the toleration which prevailed in other parts of Ireland, he mentioned that in
  338
  Cork, where the Catholics were in the proportion of three to one, there was at present a Protestant Mayor. [Nationalist cheers.] In Belfast, on the other hand, of the 20 members of the Harbour Board, of the 22 members of the Board of Guardians, of the 40 members of the Town Council, of the 17 Water Commissioners, there was not a single Catholic [Cries of shame], and of the sum of £231,686 12s. expended by the Corporation annually, Catholics received but £480. All they asked for was fair play, and he hoped on those grounds the House would vote against the Second Reading. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid, he would not detain the House more than a few moments in explaining the grounds on which he thought this Bill should not be read a Second time. Although a Protestant himself, he sat in that House by the votes of the Catholics of an Ulster constituency, and he knew from experience the deep sense of injustice under which the Catholic community in Ulster generally and in Belfast in particular laboured. [''Hear, hear!''] Though this Bill came before the House in the guise of a private Bill, by reading between the lines, he could see that its object was to clinch more firmly than ever the ascendency of one Party in that city. [''Hear, hear!"] He held that the Bill should have been brought forward as a public Bill, so that there could be full discussion upon it before a Committee of the whole House. Its effect would undoubtedly be to increase the power of the ascendency Party in Belfast to such an extent that it would be impossible for the Catholics ever to hope to emerge from the weight and burden that would be cast upon them. He would not go through all the sections of the Bill, but he desired to call attention to one or two that involved considerations of public importance. The eighth section gave the Corporation of Belfast power to deal with property which had been left for charitable purposes and trusts. That was a provision which he had never seen brought in in a

  339
  Bill of this nature. There was another provision which also showed that gerrymandering was present to the minds of the promoters of this Measure. It enabled the city to be divided into 15 wards by boundaries to be settled and determined by a person to be selected by the Chief Secretary. He asked, would it be fair or reasonable, in carrying out this Bill, that some young Conservative Barrister should be named by the Conservative Chief Secretary to carry out the regulation of the boundaries of those 15 wards? ["Hear, hear!"] That would give an opportunity for gerrymandering for which there was no precedent or example in Ireland, that land of jobbery hitherto. ["Hear, hear!"] If the House could be induced to read this Bill a Second time he trusted that the person who was to regulate those wards and divisions, would be named in the Bill, and would not be left to the discretion of any Member of the Government. [''Hear, hear!"] The provision which would enable a bonus to be given to the constabulary was also of a public character. He knew from experience, and the hon. Member who brought forward this Bill was aware, that the streets of Belfast had been flooded with the blood shed in riots between Orangemen and Catholics, and some of the police appointed by the Corporation of Belfast were actually charged criminally in connection with some of those riots, and it was after that found necessary to take from the Belfast municipality the control of the local police force. The effect of this system of giving a bonus to the police might be that they would play into the hands of the municipality. He did not believe the Royal Irish Constabulary would be capable of it, but at the same time he did not think it was right they should be exposed to this temptation. ["Hear, hear!"] Under the fifty-sixth section the old divisions of counties which had existed for three or four centuries would be altered, and jurisdiction would be given the judges of Assize of County Antrim over portions of the County Down, which under this Bill are to be annexed to the city of Belfast. That was a power which should not be delegated to a small Committee of nine, but should be referred to the whole House.
  340
  ["Hear, hear!"] It changed the place of trial for this portion of County Down, and would compel accused persons to be tried in the adjoining County of Antrim, and the juries who were to try these accused persons should be drawn, not from the County Down, but the County Antrim. That provision would change in a fundamental manner the ancient law of the land. ["Hear, hear!"] Some remark should be made with reference to the section that barristers appointed resident magistrates of Belfast need not retire from practice. The meaning of that provision appeared to be, that whereas now a man must be a practising barrister to qualify for certain judicial appointments, under this Bill he would be still qualified if he had gone through the probation of being resident magistrate to the satisfaction of the Corporation of Belfast. He appealed to the House not to read this Bill a Second time, and he asked the hon. Member who had charge of it to withdraw it, and let the Government bring it forward so that it could be discussed with the solemnity and importance to which it was fully entitled. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDreminded hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House that the Chief Secretary had announced that the Government did not care anything for the Bill, one way or the other; and he appealed to them to take a broad-minded view, and vote with the majority of the Irish Members on the occasion. He was aware that there were many hon. Gentlemen opposite who had been returned to the House to oppose what they called a Separatist Policy and to a setting up of a separate Parliament in Ireland. Hon Members opposite had, over and over again, said that short of setting up a separate Parliament in Ireland they were anxious and willing to do all they could for Ireland in accordance with the demands of the great majority of the Irish people. Now here was no proposal to set up a separate Parliament for Ireland, but a proposal put forward by the great majority of the Irish people on a purely local Irish affair, and he appealed to hon. Members on the Government side of the House to try to govern Ireland in accordance with the

  341
  wishes and desires of the majority of the Irish Members. He asked hon. Gentlemen who sometimes thought that the grievances of the Irish Nationalist people were imaginary grievances, to place themselves for the moment in the position of the Nationalist Members. Here was a Bill dealing with a purely Irish affair, and it was a Bill concerning which the great majority of hon. Gentlemen in that House knew very little indeed. They had 83 Irish Members, representing the overwhelming bulk of the country, asking the House of Commons to decide this question in their favour; and on the other side they had not more than 20 Members for Ireland asking that this local affair should be decided in their favour. If this Bill were carried, and the news went over to Ireland that the House had decided a purely Irish affair in favour of the small minority of the Irish Members, and against the strongly expressed opinion of the large majority of the Irish representatives, how could they expect that it would give rise to anything but dissatisfaction in Ireland? This Government professed to govern Ireland in accordance with Irish wishes; let them try that policy at once; they had now an opportunity of showing that, without setting up an Irish Parliament, they could respect the Irish feeling. He challenged the hon. Members for Belfast to show that it was fair there should not be a single Catholic representative on the governing body of the city. They ought to give the Catholics a small representation. It would be a much more satisfactory state of things, not only for the Catholics, but for Protestants, and for the reputation of the city, that there should be in the Municipal Council a full and fair minority representation. If, instead of there being 82 Catholic representatives and 20 Protestants in that House, there were 82 Protestant Members for Ireland and only 20 Catholic, would the House of Commons go against the 82 Members for Ireland? He believed the House of Commons had no bigotry, and therefore he appealed to all hon. Members to shake themselves free from their Party Whips for this occasion at least, and do justice to the Catholics in Belfast. The Chief Secretary had said that this was a matter in which the Government took no particular interest, therefore he asked Members to
  342
  vote with the majority of the Irish representatives on a purely Irish local affair—their vote could not be construed as in any way a menace to the integrity of the Empire. He was sure they would all like to hear an expression of his views on the question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney), who had made the due representation of minorities a study. The hon. Member for West Belfast was not quite fair when he referred to what took place in other towns in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman might have told the House that in places like Cork and Limerick, and, indeed, in all southern Municipalities, there prevailed a distinctly opposite state of affairs to that which prevailed in Belfast. In Catholic cities in the south the majority had often, in order to conciliate their fellow-citizens, if for no other reason, elected Protestants to high municipal office. Did not the hon. Member for West Belfast think it would promote a happier state of things in the north of Ireland if the actions of the Catholics in the south were reciprocated? All he asked for was that the Catholic voters in Belfast should have fair play and no favour. At the present time the arrangements of the municipal constituencies in Belfast were such that it was impossible for the Catholic voters to return a due number of representatives. He advised that the city should be divided into constituencies fairly, and not gerrymandered. There should be a proper distribution of seats, and then nobody would find fault with the arrangement. He asked hon. Members opposite to commence their governing of Ireland without Home Rule according to their promise, by voting with the vast majority of the Irish Members upon this question.
  MR. PRYCE-JONESunderstood from hon. Members from Ireland who sat opposite, that at present and under this Bill the Catholics of Belfast would not have proportional representation. Unless he heard facts to the contrary, he should have no hesitation in casting his vote for the Amendment. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for East Clare that Catholics should have fair play and no favour. Whilst he was a strong Unionist and a Protestant, he thought Roman

  343
  Catholics and Nonconformists ought to have their fair share of representation, and he was not afraid of voting in favour of giving them that justice which he and his friends expected to receive.
  MR. M. McCARTANsaid, it was a pleasure to hear a friendly voice raised for justice and fair play in Ireland from any hon. Member on the Benches opposite, and he could not help thinking that if Unionist Members generally had given as much attention to the Debate, and had considered the justice of the matter, as the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow had done, the decision of the House in this matter would for once be in favour of justice being done to Catholics in Ireland. The House would contrast the speech of the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow with that from the hon. Member for North Belfast, who, not long since, speaking in Belfast, declared that, so long as he had a voice to raise or an arm to lift, it would be raised or lifted to prevent any Nationalist being admitted to the Municipality of Belfast. No Unionist voice had defended the indefensible position of municipal matters in Belfast, and the only voices from Tory Ulster were those of the most recent recruit from North Belfast and that of the English Gentleman who represented West Belfast, a constituency long represented by a Member of the Nationalist Party, whose eloquence and ability had reflected honour upon the House, from which his absence was generally regretted. ["Hear, hear!"] For justice simply he asked. For fair representation for the Catholic minority, he cared not how. The terms of the Instruction offered one method for securing representation of 70,000 or 80,000 Catholics in Belfast, but he would not be in order in referring further to that. No other suggestion had been offered as an alternative to the new system of gerrymandering proposed in the Bill. If the Bill passed, it would only lead to a new system of gerrymandering the municipal representation of the city. The Catholics of Belfast asked only for fair play. They could hold their own if fair opportunity was given them. In the professions and in business matters, in intelligence and in integrity, they had shown that they were equal to any competitors, and he was confident the individual
  344
  members of the Corporation would admit the fact, though they might not make the admission publicly.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN MR. P. J. O'BRIEN (Tipperary, N.) rose to speak, when—
  MR. E. CARSON MR. E. CARSON (Dublin University) moved that the Question be now put.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he would not interrupt the hon. Member who had just risen, but he might express the opinion that the question had been fully debated, and that the House might come to a decision upon it. [Cheers.]
  MR. P. J. O'BRIENreferred to the case of Liverpool, where the Catholic minority were afforded an opportunity which they fully used of securing representation on the local council. The claim of Catholics in Liverpool had been recognised, and on no just ground could the fair claims for the Catholics in Belfast be denied. He fully recognised the honourable way in which the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow had expressed his view of the case. If more members of the Unionist Party were animated with such sentiments the expression of them would go far to convince Irishmen that the Unionist Party were earnest in their professions for the welfare of Ireland.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON MR. W. JOHNSTON rose to speak amidst loud cries of ''Closure!'' from the Irish Benches, and said he claimed the privilege of making a few remarks. [Loud cries of "Divide!" and "Closure!"]
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not make it necessary for him to listen to those suggestions of closure.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONsaid he had no objection to be closured, and resumed his seat.
  Question put:—
  The House divided:—Ayes, 249; Noes, 135.—(Division List, No. 30.)
  MR. W. JOHNSTON MR. W. JOHNSTON moved that the Bill be postponed until Tuesday.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question is that the Bill be now read a Second time.
  MR. DILLON: I rise to move that the Debate be now adjourned.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to move that the Question be now put.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he thought he could, in a very few moments, make out a very strong case for the Adjournment of the Debate. It was perfectly plain from what had occurred that a great difference of opinion existed on this subject. The point which he would specially draw attention to was this—that already a very large portion of this evening had been consumed in the consideration of this private Bill.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I rise to order. I wish to know whether I was out of order in moving that the question be now put?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was not out of order, but I desire to say that, although the question has been fully debated, and there ought to be, in my opinion, no further Debate on this formal question, I wish to hear what reasons the hon. Member for East Mayo may have for carrying on the Debate. He is about to offer some reason why it should be adjourned, and I accordingly suspend my judgment.
  MR. DILLONsaid he was observing that the Debate ought not to be continued, for that night was one of the special nights for Supply, and already half the evening had gone. He would like to hear from the First Lord of the Treasury whether it was proposed under the new Rule to count this as one of the nights.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That clearly is not a reason for moving the Adjournment.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think that is an abuse of the forms of the House. The whole of the case for this Bill has been debated fully in the usual way, and on the usual question. It is a most unusual thing to raise a second Debate, and therefore I must proceed to put the question. The question is that this Bill be now read a second time.
  Main question put:—
  The House divided:—Ayes, 241; Noes, 131.—(Division List, No. 31).
  MR. KNOX MR. KNOX rose to move the Instruction standing on the Paper in his name. There were, he said, two parts of the Instruction, the first part of which, he
  346
  understood, there was no objection to. He thought, therefore, it would be a convenient course if he should move the part to which there was no objection, and leave over the other part. He moved:—
  "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of Nine Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Five by the Committee of Selection; that all Petitions against the Bill presented Seven clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee, that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; that Three be the quorum."
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to state how soon he proposed to strike the Committee, and also to give the House a general idea as to its composition. There were only four Members to be nominated by the House. Would the principle be adopted of taking two from one side and two from the other?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, that is my idea.
  MR. KNOX: There will be a Unionist majority on the Committee of Selection?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes.
  Instruction agreed to.
  MR. KNOXin rising to move—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire into the municipal franchise and the present mode of election of aldermen and councillors of the city, and as to the expediency of applying the principle of cumulative voting to such elections, and whether it is expedient to modify or alter the law as to such franchise or election in other respects, and, if they think fit, to make provision in the Bill for the same accordingly."
  stated that he understood objection was taken to this Instruction, and that being so he could not proceed with it now.
  MR. SPEAKER: I gather from some observations that have fallen in the course of the Debate, that it is not assented to generally, and that being so it must, by the Standing Orders, stand over to a future day.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I ask it to be taken on Tuesday.
  MR. T. M. HEALYremarked that Tuesday would be an inconvenient day. It was a Private Members' day of which

  347
  they ought not to be robbed now that the Government had got an additional day in each week.
  MR. SPEAKER: Under the Standing Orders, unless it is otherwise agreed, it must go over until the next day upon which the House sits, which will be Monday.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to give notice that on Monday I shall move that it stand over until Tuesday.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: And I shall move that it be deferred until Thursday.

  LONDONDERRY IMPROVEMENT BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I move "That the consideration of this Bill be deferred till Tuesday next." (Cries of "Monday.")
  MR. SPEAKER: It is for the House to say whether it shall come on upon Tuesday. The hon. Member in charge of the Bill may move that it should go over to Tuesday, but if other hon. Members do not agree to that, it is for the House to decide upon what day it shall be taken.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Shall I be in order in moving either a later or an earlier day?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have said it is for the House to decide whether it shall be taken on Tuesday or some other day, and that can be done by moving some Amendment to the Motion.
  Mr. T. M. HEALYsaid he presumed the House would not decide that without argument. He therefore begged to move as an Amendment that Monday be substituted for Tuesday. He remarked that the only way to get terms with regard to private Bills out of the Government, was to make it inconvenient for the Government to assent to the monstrous proposals involved in these Bills. It was idle for the Government to say they had no responsibility. They had this responsibility. They were in command of a majority of the House, and every Member of the Government went into the Lobby on both occasions in support of the Bill. They had not only their responsibility as individuals but as a
  348
  Government. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Derry proposed that this Bill should be put down for Tuesday, to filch from private Members the time at their disposal. The question of Sunday opening of museums was to be debated next Tuesday. They had waited many years to debate it and he saw no reason why it should be shelved. He assured the hon. Baronet that if he did not support the Irish Members in carrying Monday instead of Tuesday, he should have little chance for his Motion on Tuesday, because of the lengthy discussion which would take place both on this Bill and the Derry Bill, which was even more vicious. It was to suit the convenience of the Lord Mayor of Belfast and Sir Samuel Black, the Town Clerk, that they were put to the inconvenience of debating this Bill that day. The Government had an extra day for Supply, and he urged that they should support him to have this Motion debated in Government time.
  MR. VESEY KNOXseconded the Amendment. Hon. Members opposite, while wishing to save the time of the Government, wished to take away the political future of the candidates in Londonderry and Belfast. The Derry Bill was an extraordinary Bill—the most extraordinary private Bill ever brought into the House. He would have to give his reason for saying this in detail at the proper time, so the Debate on the Bill would not be quickly disposed of. This was not a Bill which private Members, with the interests of private Members at heart, would wish to put down for Tuesday. He appealed to Conservative Members in the interest of the Conservative Member for Finsbury, who had secured Tuesday, and in the interest of the time of the House, to let this Bill be taken again on Monday.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYhoped the hon. Member would not persist in the Amendment. The Seconder had told them that this was an extraordinary Bill. He was not sufficiently acquainted with its details to express an opinion on that point. Whether it was extraordinary or not, Tuesday was as fit a day as Monday, if not fitter. He trusted the hon. Member would not persist in the unusual course of differing

  349
  from the promoters of the Bill as to the day on which the Bill was to be put down
  The House divided:—Ayes, 214; Noes, 111.—(Division List, No. 32.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill to be read 2a upon Tuesday next.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

  BILLS SUSPENDED.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKE: At the earliest opportunity after Easter to move:—
  "That it is desirable that the practice of this House should be so amended that the consideration of Bills which have passed the Second reading and not become law should be resumed in the succeeding Session of the same Parliament at the stage of Committee."

  DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE.
  SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, on Vote 14 for the non-effective charges, to move to reduce the vote by the sum of £1,800, being the special pension proposed to be given to the late Commander-in-Chief.
QUESTIONS.

  FLOGGING IN EGYPTIAN ARMY AND POLICE.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on whose advice flogging by the British cat-o'-nine-tails was introduced into the Egyptian Army and the Egyptian Police during the British occupation, and the re-organisation of those forces for which credit has been claimed in Reports laid before Parliament; and whether such flogging has now ceased?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): Flogging was not introduced into the Egyptian Army and Police during the British occupation. It already existed in those forces without any restriction. In 1883, however, when the Egyptian army was re-organised, flogging was no longer permitted, except by sentence of a court-martial. It may be inflicted in the case of first offences, in punishment of a few crimes of a disgraceful nature, and in that of other offences, for continuous misconduct and a series of convictions by court-martial. The number of cases has, however, been diminishing every year. The police are under the same regulations, except that the power of a summary court-martial to inflict corporal punishment was recently cancelled. Cases of flogging in the police are even more rare than in the army. The military authorities are careful to make a very sparing use of this punishment.
  SIR C. DILKE: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question, and I shall have to put it down again.

  ASHANTI EXPEDITION.
  MR. LEIGH CLARE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Canterbury, Mr. HENNIKER HEATON, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has been informed that much dissatisfaction has been expressed among the members of the Ashanti expeditionary force at the arrangements for the transmission of correspondence to and from the troops engaged; whether he will state what arrangements were made for this purpose; and, whether he will direct that in future, in view of the difficulty of procuring stamps in the field, letters from soldiers and officers on active service shall be carried free?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General has not been informed of any dissatisfaction on the part of the members of the Ashanti expedition. He is not aware what arrangements were made for the carriage of the force's correspondence to and from the coast after their landing. Between this country and

  351
  the West Coast of Africa, the letters of the force were, of course, sent by the regular weekly packet service to and from the West Coast. The Legislature has long conferred upon soldiers on active service the privilege of sending and receiving letters at the rate of 1d. per half-ounce on certain conditions, but has not authorised the gratuitous transmission of such letters. The difficulty of prepayment when the troops are in remote parts of the globe is met by a difference between the statutory provisions for outward and homeward letters. A soldier's letter outward from England forfeits all such privilege if not prepaid, and is detained and returned to the writer for prepayment of the postage. A soldier's letter homeward from abroad it still carried at the privileged rate even if not prepaid. Beyond this the Postmaster General is not empowered by Parliament to go.
  MR. J. A. WILLOX: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Her Majesty's Government will take into favourable consideration the propriety of making some appropriate and subtantial grant to the officers and men engaged in the recent expedition to Ashanti, in recognition of the arduous and perilous duties which they performed?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey,): Steps have already been taken to make a grant to the troops engaged in the recent operations in Ashanti. I will explain the arrangement on moving the Estimate for the expedition.

  ARMY CORPS AND ARMY RESERVE.
  MAJOR DALBIAC: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what proportion of men now serving with the regiments of the First Army Corps are medically unfit to proceed on active service; and when the men of the First class Army Reserve were last medically examined as to their fitness for active service?
  MR. BRODRICKUnless every man in the Army Corps were medically examined it would not be practicable to say how many are unfit for active service. Men of the First-class Army Reserve who served in the experimental mobilization last year were medically examined and over 94 per cent. found fit.

  POSTCARDS (ST. HELENA).
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why the Island of St. Helena, although a British Possession, is the only part of the world to which reply postcards are not transmissible?
  MR. HANBURY: The finances of St. Helena have not as yet been considered sufficiently flourishing to admit of the adoption of the postcard system. Hence, if the Colony accepted reply postcards from this country, the reply halves would displace letters and thus involve the island in a direct loss of revenue. In these circumstances the Colony has refused to accept these cards. It is understood that some improvement in the financial condition of St. Helena has lately taken place and that the question of issuing both single and double postcards in the island is under consideration?

  ROYAL CANAL (IRELAND).
  MR. J. TUITE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade can he state whether the promise made to the Board of Trade some months ago by the Midland and Great Western Railway Company of Ireland to provide a steam dredger for the Royal Canal has as yet been fulfilled; and, if not, will he obtain from the Company a definite assurance as to when the dredger may be expected to arrive?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The Company inform me that the dredger has arrived in Dublin and is being erected by contractors. I understand that the machinery was damaged in transit and that three weeks will elapse before it is ready for use.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND).
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the two proposed light railways in the Mid Cork division of the county of Cork, one line of railway being an extension of the Cork and Macroom Railway to Ballyvourney, and the other by the same company to Inchegeela; and whether

  353
  the Government, having considered the question, will give any special facilities to the proposed lines?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds,): The case of these proposed lines of railway will be considered with that of others. More than this I cannot at present say.

  DEPORTATION FROM SCOTLAND.
  MR. M. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, (1) with reference to the deportation from Scotland of Irish born persons who have lived and worked in Scotland for the greater portion of their lives, whether the time of their residence in Scotland is taken into account to qualify for settlement, or if the qualifying time only begins to run from their coming to the parish from which they are deported; (2) whether the Local Government Board have expressed any opinion against this state of affair's; and (3) whether, considering that although the work of their lives has been spent in Scotland, and that they are only deported when they become destitute and unfit for work, he will consider the desirability of having the law as to deportation repealed?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir CHARLES PEARSON,): The first paragraph of this Question discloses a misconception which I may be allowed to remove. Neither of the alternatives mentioned in the first paragraph is an accurate expression of the legal rule as to residence. The statutory rules as to the legal settlement of paupers are not based upon residence in one country or another, but upon residence in one parish or another; and the liability of the birth parish remains in all cases where a settlement has either not been acquired in any other, or, being acquired, is lost. This is the case equally as between two Scottish parishes, and as between a Scottish and an Irish parish. I am not aware that the Local Government Board have expressed any opinion against this state of the law. The subject is beset with difficulty. The Departments concerned are still in communication about it; and every effort will be made to arrive at a satisfactory solution.

  GALWAY COUNTY INFIRMARY.
  MR. C. J. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that in the case of the Galway County Infirmary the Court of Queen's Bench decided that the governors and governesses of county infirmaries were not corporations constituted for the management of any private endowments, nor trustees for the management of property belonging to institutions of private foundations, and that consequently neither the Archbishop of Armagh, nor the bishops and incumbents of the dioceses and parishes in which county infirmaries are situated are governors of such infirmaries; that the Rev. Mr. O'Sullivan did not become a Member of the said corporation of governors and governesses on his appointment as incumbent of the parish in which said infirmary is situated; and further, that the Rev. Mr. O'Sullivan, as vicar or incumbent of the parish of Galway, is not a Member of such corporation, or ex officio a governor thereof; (2) whether he will state in what respect the circumstances of the Carlow County Infirmary differ from those of the Galway County Infirmary, referred to in the decision of Mr. Justice Harrison, given 14th January 1889; and (3) whether he has yet decided to have the accounts of these institutions audited by the Government auditor?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The first paragraph states the facts with substantial accuracy. There is no difference between the cases of Carlow and Galway, and I am now advised that the Rector of Carlow is not entitled to act ex-officio as Governor of the County Infirmary. In the answer previously given, it was assumed by the Law Officers that the circumstances were not identical, but on further inquiry it has been ascertained they are. As regards the third paragraph, the Local Government Board have carefully considered the whole question, and are clearly of opinion that, as the duties and powers of their auditors are all expressly defined by Statute, and as there is no enactment in force giving them authority to deal with the accounts of county infirmaries, which are supported by Grand Jury Presentments, an audit of these accounts could not be carried out by those officers under the

  355
  existing law. The circumstances of the Galway Hospital are on a different footing in this respect, inasmuch as it is supported out of the poor rates of the county, and the Act of Parliament establishing it imposes upon the Local Government Board auditor the duty of auditing the accounts.

  DISMISSAL OF SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. DONALD NICOL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he is aware that the School Board of Lismore and Appin dismissed the teacher of Ballachulish School for an unsatisfactory report by Her Majesty's Inspector before charges against the examiner had been disposed of; what steps is the Department taking with regard to the complaint lodged against Mr. David Johnson, Assistant Inspector of Schools, by the people of Ballachulish; is he aware that the parents have withdrawn their children from the public school, and sent them also in a body to the Episcopal school owing to the action of the School Board towards their teacher; and, are the ratepayers to be burdened for the loss of the grant to the public school?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I understand that the School Board of Lismore and Appin have given notice of dismissal to the teacher of the Ballachulish School; but no official notice of this has been sent to the Department, and I am unable to say whether the Board's determination was based upon the report of Her Majesty's Inspector. For that report the Inspector alone is responsible; and a complaint made by a certain number of Memorialists against the Inspector's assistant is based upon a misapprehension of his position and duties. I have no information with regard to the withdrawal of pupils from the school; and so far there has been no loss of grant to the school.

  PARISH AND DISTRICT COUNCILS' ASSOCIATION.
  MR. T. LOUGHin the absence of the hon. Member for East Norfolk, Mr. R. J. PRICE, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to the fact that parish and district councils are still being publicly invited
  356
  to subscribe moneys, at the ratepayers' expense, to an association describing itself as the Parish and District Councils' Association of England and Wales; whether the Local Government Board has informed the Secretary of that Association that the payment of an annual subscription to its funds could not be lawfully charged on the funds of a parish or district council; and whether, in the interests of ratepayers and councillors, the Board will give instructions to the district auditors to disallow the payments of all subscriptions to this body out of the rates, and take the necessary step to prevent the publication of the Association's unauthorised statement?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): I have no information as to the constitution of the Parish and District Councils' Association, or the statements alluded to in the question with regard to it. But the Local Government Board informed the secretary, in reply to a communication received from him so long ago as June 1894, that the Board did not consider that subscriptions to the Association could legally be charged on the rates. It would be entirely opposed to the practice of the Board to give any instructions to the district auditors as to items to be disallowed by them, seeing that it rests with the Board to determine any appeals which may be made to them against disallowances made by the auditors.
  MR. LOUGH: Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to send notice of the decision arrived at in 1894 with regard to this Association to the Councils, to save them being led into subscriptions?
  MR. CHAPLIN: No, Sir; I do not think that would have a greater effect than the reply I have given.

  NAVAL CADETSHIPS.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he can state what changes in the dates for the next two or more examinations for Naval Cadetships are probable, and when the new scheme of examination is likely to be announced?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): The details of the changes proposed in the examinations for the Britannia have not yet been fully worked out, but I may say that no alteration will be made in the next ensuing examination, which will be held under the same conditions as before. It will be necessary to introduce the proposed changes in age and examination gradually, so as to prevent inconvenience to the candidates, and also the difficulties which would occur in the Britannia if the age of new entries were suddenly raised by six months or more.

  CRIMEAN PENSIONS.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether, in view of the rapidly diminishing number of Crimean veterans qualified for compassionate allowances, the restriction will be removed under which men of 65, if medically certified to be able-bodied, cannot secure a pension, although starving from inability to find employment in competition with younger men?
  MR. BRODRICK: No instance can be traced in which a campaign pension has been refused, on the ground of his being able-bodied, to any soldier in necessitous circumstances who had 10 years' service, was 65 years of age, and held a medal for a campaign before 1860. If the hon. Member will inform me of any case which has come to his knowledge, I will cause inquiry to be made.

  TELEGRAMS (DOVER TO CALAIS).
  MR. LEIGH CLARE: On behalf of Mr. HENNIKER HEATON, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a telegram from Dover to Calais is first sent to London, then to Paris, and from Paris to Calais, in place of being forwarded direct; and, whether steps are being taken to change this arrangement?
  MR. HANBURY: A telegram from Dover to Calais is ordinarily sent from Dover to London and from London to Calais direct. It would only be sent by Paris when the Calais wire was interrupted or taken for other traffic. The existing arrangement works satisfactorily, and there is no intention to alter it.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881.
  MR. S. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he will state the number of recorded cases from county Cavan under the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881; (2) whether the tenants in these cases are now entitled by the efflux of time to make application to have their rents fixed for the second judicial term; and (3) whether he can mention the earliest date at which these tenants can have their cases heard, and at the same time avail themselves of the advantages, if any, of the proposed Land Bill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In the county of Cavan there were 527 cases in which the applications to have fair rents fixed were recorded in the manner provided by the 60th Section of the Land Act of 1881. Tenants who had judicial rents fixed in such cases would, in the ordinary course, be now entitled to apply to have a fair rent fixed for a second statutory term. I am not in a position to reply to the last paragraph; but I may observe that, as a matter of fact, no applications to have fair rents fixed for a second statutory term have been received by the Land Commissioners from the county Cavan.
  MR. McCARTAN: When will the Second Reading take place?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That question must be addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it a fact that, with regard to certain districts, there are no applications actually before the Court?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I said there are no applications from county Cavan.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: How is it the Commission always pass these cases over?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  GRANTS TO IRELAND.
  MR. A. F. JEFFREYS (Hants,): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if he could state to the House how much money has been granted to Ireland by Parliament under the various Land Acts and Public Works Loans Acts during the last 16 years; and (2) also, how much additional money

  359
  has been granted to Ireland by Parliament during that period for the purpose of railways, and on what terms?
  MR. HANBURY: If the hon. Member will put this Question into the form of a Return, showing whether he intends to include loans as well as grants, I will consider whether and how the information he requires can be afforded. As regards the last paragraph of his Question, Parliament has sanctioned during the period named a permanent annuity for railway extension in Ireland amounting in the whole to £65,000, the capitalised value of which, at 3 per cent., is £2,166,666. The whole of this annuity, or the capitalised value of it, has been earmarked to railway extension. In addition to this sum a special grant of £2,500 was made in 1894–5 to the Tralee and Dingle Railway Company.

  DISMISSAL OF POSTMASTER (COUNTY TYRONE).
  MR. P. C. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state for what reason Mr. Beck, late postmaster at Rock, county Tyrone, has been dismissed and the office transferred to a less suitable centre; whether he is aware that the Post Office business had been carried on at Rock, on the premises occupied by Mr. Beck, for an unbroken period of 26 years, and that a memorial in favour of continuing the old arrangement, signed by all the magistrates, clergymen, and principal residents of the postal district, has been forwarded to the Secretary of the General Post Office, Dublin; and, whether, in consideration of these facts, he will cause further inquiries to be made into this case with a view to ascertain if the prayer of this memorial can be granted?
  MR. HANBURY: Mr. Beck was not the postmaster at Rock, but simply the purchaser of the house in which the Post Office had been held; and, as that house was a public-house, he was informed at the time of the purchase that the Post Office would not be continued there if another house could be obtained. It is true that the Post Office had been held in the same house for 25 years, and that a numerously-signed memorial was received in Mr. Beck's favour; but so
  360
  important is it now thought that a Post Office should not be conducted at a public-house, that the Postmaster General did not feel justified in complying with the request.
  MR. DOOGAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that for the past 15 years the Post Office was carried on in an additional building, which was erected by direction of the Postal authorities, with a view to absolute isolation from the licensed premises, and that Mr. Beck was appointed Sub-Postmaster when he purchased the house in October last?
  MR. HANBURY: I am not aware of the facts mentioned by the hon. Member.

  GOVERNMENT PRINTING.
  MR.W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will, in the present Session, arrange that Irish printers shall obtain the printing of Returns and Reports, compiled by Irish Government officials and relating to Ireland, which are not at present printed in that country, such as School Returns, National Education, Commissions of the Peace, Labourers' Act Cottages Returns, etc., Land Acts Reports, etc.?
  MR. HANBURY: In my answer to a question put by the hon. Member on the 25th February, I explained the position as regards Parliamentary papers. As regards non-Parliamentary papers printed for Irish Departments, I understand that, as a matter of course, the printing is done in Ireland; but if the hon. Member will show me specimens of the papers which he alludes to as having been printed in England, I shall be happy to have the matter investigated.

  JUDICIAL RENTS (IRELAND).
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of holdings in county Down and county Antrim, respectively, the tenants of which are now entitled to make application to have rents fixed for the second judicial term; whether any new Sub-Commissioners have been recently appointed; and, whether he will state when he is likely to appoint such a

  361
  number of Sub-Commissioners as will be able to cope with the work before them?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In the county of Antrim there were 2,597 and in the county of Down there were 4,030 applications to fix fair rents made to the Land Commission before the termination of the first occasion on which the Court sat after the passing of the Land Act of 1881, and in nearly all of these cases the applications were recorded pursuant to the 60th Section of that Act. Tenants who had judicial rents fixed in recorded cases would, in the ordinary course, be now entitled to apply to the Court to have fair rents fixed for a second statutory term. Up to the present, applications to fix a fair rent for the second statutory term have been made to the Land Commission in only two cases in the county Antrim, and in 24 cases in the county Down. No new Sub-Commissioners have recently been appointed, nor is it in contemplation to appoint any until the necessity arises.

  RENTS (COUNTY DOWN).
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutentant of Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been called to a representative meeting of farmers held at Cloghskelt, county Down, on 28th February last, under the presidency of the Rev. H. A. Irvine; (2) whether he is aware that a resolution was unanimously adopted declaring the present rents in county Down impossible of payment, and calling upon the Government to bring the farmers relief in their present straits; and (3) if any measure of relief is to be given them, whether he will endeavour to have it passed into law without unnecessary delay?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are as stated in the first and second paragraphs. If the last paragraph refers to any temporary Measure to be introduced and passed pending the discussion of the Land Bill, I have only to repeat, what I have already stated several times, that no Measure is in contemplation.

  VENEZUELA.
  SIR JOHN STIRLING-MAXWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign
  362
  Affairs, when the Blue-book relating to the Venezuelan Boundary will be distributed?
  MR. CURZONsaid, a few copies were in the Vote Office for the use of Members. The book would be distributed next morning.

  DR. JAMESON.
  COLONEL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies—(1) whether he is aware, with reference to the alleged unconditional surrender of Dr. Jameson's force on 2nd January, that Sir John Willoughby replied to Commandant Cronje's Dispatch, already published, to the effect that they accepted the terms on the understanding that he guaranteed the lives of the whole force; that, on the receipt of this last Dispatch by the leader of the Transvaal forces, instructions were sent in accordance with which Dr. Jameson's force laid down their arms; and that, after the surrender had been effected, Commandant Malan reproved Commandant Cronje, in the presence of many witnesses, for having granted these terms; and (2) whether he will cause further inquiries to be made into all the circumstances of the case?
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies—(1) whether the offer in writing of Commandant Cronje, that the lives of Dr. Jameson and his whole force would be spared on condition of their laying down their arms and undertaking to pay an indemnity, was accepted in writing by Sir John Willoughby on behalf of the troops engaged; (2) whether he can inform the House why neither Sir Hercules Robinson nor Sir Jacobus de Wet made any attempt to find out from Dr. Jameson and his officers, during the 16 days they were in Pretoria gaol, what were the real terms of surrender; and (3) whether it is a fact that the Queen's High Commissioner, and the Representative of the Suzerain Power, was forbidden by President Kruger to communicate with the prisoners at Pretoria except as to subjects agreed to by President Kruger?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Perhaps the hon.

  363
  Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield will allow me to take the opportunity of answering his Question at the same time. The answer to the first part of both Questions is that a letter has been received in my Department from Sir John Willoughby's solicitor giving his client's recollection of what took place substantially as stated in the Questions. As regards the second and third parts of the Question of the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield, I have already answered them in the reply given yesterday, and I have only to repeat that Sir Hercules Robinson and Sir Jacobus de Wet did not ask about the terms of the surrender because they believed, and had been informed, that they were unconditional. The Military Secretary was given a pass on condition that he would not discuss with the prisoners points other than those specified, but the prisoners might certainly have communicated the terms of their surrender to him if they had thought it necessary to do so. I suppose that they did not do so because they assumed that the terms were already known to the High Commissioner.
  MR. J. H. DALZIEL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General, whether, with reference to the forthcoming Inquiry into the circumstances of Dr. Jameson's raid into the Transvaal, he is aware that Major Heaney, recently a member of Dr. Jameson's force, left England on Saturday for the United States; and, whether, before his departure was permitted, any steps were taken to ascertain whether or not he was in a position to tender important evidence in regard to the pending Inquiry?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): In reply to the hon. Member I can only repeat the answer which I gave some days ago to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, and that is that I decline to answer any questions respecting the conduct of the proceedings which have been commenced against persons concerned in the transactions referred to in the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. DALZIEL: May I ask the Attorney General whether it is not the case that the Major Heaney referred to arrived at Mafeking on the morning that
  364
  Dr. Jameson started, by special train, and whether he will ascertain who paid for that special train?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I can give no further answer.

  RUSSIAN OATS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that in the Customs House, Dublin, there is at present stored a large quantity of Russian oats, imported by contractors or intending contractors for the purpose of supplying Her Majesty's cavalry stationed in Ireland; and, whether in future tenders any provision will be made to prevent a preference to foreign imports and enable the native growers of corn to compete on reasonable terms?
  MR. BRODRICK: It is not known at the War Office whether or not the facts are as stated by the hon. Member, and I can only repeat that the question of the supply of forage to the troops is under inquiry.

  FROZEN MEAT.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether it is intended, in the new form of tender for meat contracts, to prevent the importation of frozen meat into a meat producing country like Ireland, if the native product can be had at or about a similar price?
  MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member was informed yesterday that the question of the supply of meat to the troops in Ireland is under the consideration of the Secretary of State, and the subject of purchasing from local instead of from outside sources forms of course an important part of the Inquiry.

  TECHNICAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether any provision has been made in the Estimates to increase the endowment for technical education generally and higher scientific technical training in Ireland; and, whether the Government will introduce a Bill dealing with the whole subject?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Legislation would be necessary for the purpose indicated in the hon. Gentleman's Question. The Government cannot undertake to deal with the subject of general technical education this Session.
  MR. FIELD: May I ask what provision is made in the Estimates?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will consider the matter.

  PONSONBY ESTATES (IRELAND).
  MR. E. CARSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it is a fact that settlements have been arrived at between the evicted tenants and the landlord of the Ponsonby estates; whether such settlements have been made under the Act passed in the last Session; could he state what is the number of tenants who have settled; and whether he will press upon the Land Commission the necessity of expediting, as far as possible, the proceedings before them, so as to enable the evicted tenants to return to their former holdings?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No agreements under the Act of last Session have yet been lodged in the Land Commission, but the Commissioners understand that agreements have been entered into in over 90 cases from the Ponsonby estate, and when these agreements have been lodged all possible steps will be taken to expedite the proceedings.
  CAPTAIN DONELANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would press the Commissioners, when they were determining the value of those farms, to consider the fact that, owing to the period of the year in which the purchase arrangements had been concluded, it would be absolutely impossible for the tenants to crop their farms this year?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think it is any part of my business to call the attention of the Commissioners to that.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many head constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary have been promoted to district inspectorships since January 1895, and
  366
  will the next vacancy be given to a head constable; whether, in view of the fact that the Commandant, Adjutant, Musketry Instructor, Riding Master, two Reserve Officers, Chief Clerk, and the Private Secretary to the Inspector-General, are all Englishmen and Protestants, he will consider the claims of Roman Catholics in making future appointments; and if it is the intention of the Irish Excutive to reorganise the force?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No head constables have been promoted to the rank of district inspector since January 1895, as no vacancies have existed. There are altogether 12 constabulary officers permanently stationed at the depôt, and of these seven are Protestants and five Roman Catholics. I may add that there is no present intention of reorganising the force, and that in no case are the chances of a candidate diminished by reason of his being a Roman Catholic.

  ROYAL INDIAN MARINE.
  MR. PERCY THORNTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any officers of the Royal Indian Marine were offered Commissions as supernumerary lieutenants in the British Navy, when 100 candidates were recently selected for these posts from the Royal Naval Reserve and other sources?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: One officer of the Royal Indian Marine has been offered a Commissian on the Supplementary List of the Royal Navy, provided that he passes the required Board of Trade examination. I do not know that any other application has been received.

  TRAWLERS IN THE MORAY FIRTH.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate: (1) whether it is the case that, in spite of the decision of the Court of Justiciary, the trawlers continue actively their operations in the Moray Firth; (2) whether the Niger has left the coast and gone south; and (3) whether the Government will give effectual protection to the line fishermen by sending swift police boats with local

  367
  men on board personally interested in obtaining the capture and punishment of those transgressing the law?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: H.M.S. Cockchafer and Redwing are now patrolling the Moray Firth with instructions to report every trawler caught fishing in the area covered by Byelaw No. 10. The latter vessel superseded the Niger. The Cockchafer detected four trawlers working off Tarbet Ness on 3rd March; these will be reported to the Procurator Fiscal at Dornoch for prosecution. The Government will continue to protect the line fishermen against breaches of the law; but I cannot accept the details of the scheme shadowed forth in the third paragraph of the Question.

  STATUTORY OATH OF BANKRUPTCY.
  MR. J. McLEOD: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether his attention has been directed to the case of Mr. Duncan Cameron, farmer, Fettes, who has been imprisoned since the 5th of October last (upwards of 150 days) for refusing to take the statutory oath of bankruptcy, Mr. Cameron maintaining that he is able and willing to satisfy all his creditors, and would therefore be perjuring himself if he took the oath referred to; and whether the sheriff has any discretionary power, or the Crown any authority, to put an end to Mr. Cameron's imprisonment?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I am aware of this case. Mr. Cameron was not imprisoned for refusing to take the statutory oath of bankruptcy, which is set forth in Section 95 of the Statute. He was imprisoned under Section 93, whereby, if a person in his position refuses, as he did, to be sworn or to answer lawful questions, he may be committed to prison, "there to remain until he comply with the order." The idea that his taking an oath to tell the truth would involve perjury is, if I may respectfully say so, absurd. I am unwilling to say that the sheriff has no discretionary power to release him. That is a matter, in the first instance, for the determination of the sheriff, if only it is brought before him; but Mr. Cameron has throughout refused to take any one of several ways out of the
  368
  difficulty which were open to him. I do not think it is a case for the interposition of the Crown.
  MR. McLEOD: Am I to understand that the position is this—that if Mr. Cameron refuses to take the oath he will be interned in prison for ever?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I have read the language which Parliament uses and its application to the situation, and I cannot go further.
  MR. DALZIEL: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, considering that this gentleman has been in prison now for four months, he will not give special attention to the case, with a view to seeing whether Mr. Cameron can be released?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: My attention has been directed to the matter since 6th October last, and I shall continue to give it attention.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC COMMISSION.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Licensing Laws in Scotland will be included in the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on the Liquor Traffic?
  SIR T. LEAalso asked whether the terms of reference would include Ireland.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): There will be no restriction in the terms of reference to the Commission. Parties from all parts of the Kingdom will be heard.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman know how many Royal Commissions have inquired into the Licensing Laws during the past generation?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have no information on that point. [Laughter.]
  SIR W. LAWSON: Or can the right hon. Gentleman say how many may sit in the future?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have no powers of prophecy. [Laughter.]

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury what business would be taken on Monday.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I confess my calculations have been upset by the length of time occupied to-night by private Bills. But after the Navy Vote we will take the Army Supplementary Estimates; and it is probable that we shall put down on Monday certain Bills of a non-controversial character.
  DR. TANNERasked what were the Bills of a non-controversial character to which he referred?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The next stage of the Naval Works Bill will be put down; also the reference to a Committee of the Light Railways Bill, and the next stage of the Army Manœuvres Bill. With regard to the latter Bill, it will be highly desirable, if not absolutely necessary, that it should be passed before Easter.
  MR. McLEODhoped the Scotch Members would get a week's notice before the Scotch Estimates were taken, as an undertaking of the kind had been given to the Irish Members.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not remember the undertaking; but we hope, not only in the case of Scotland, but in every instance, to give timely notice of the Estimates to be taken. ["Hear, hear!"]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) (PUBLIC HEALTH RATING) No. 2.
  Bill to amend the Local Government (Scotland) Acts, 1889 and 1894, in respect of Public Health Rating, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Renshaw, Mr. Nicol, Mr. Parker Smith, and Mr. M'Killop; presented, and read la; to be read 2a upon Thursday, 26th March.— [Bill 135.]
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Field, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, and Mr. Farrell; presented, and read la; to be read 2a upon Wednesday, 25th March.—[Bill 136.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY.—NAVY ESTIMATES, 1896–7.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the Chair.]
  Question again proposed,
  "That 93,750 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coastguard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, including 16,005 Royal Marines."—(first Lord of the Admiralty.)
  MR. REES DAVIESdesired to offer a few general observations as regards the treatment of Pembroke Dockyard. He referred in particular to the action of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, who was, during the last Parliament, as a former First Lord, the responsible spokesman of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The House would recollect that in the month of May last, during the latter days of the late Government, his Friend Mr. Egerton Allen, the former Member for the Pembroke Boroughs, moved an Amendment on the Naval Works Bill, claiming a share of the proposed expenditure for Pembroke, and the noble Lord strongly supported him, as the following remarks would show:—
  "The Government had assented to the claims of Wales to be treated as a separate nation so far as religion was concerned. But the moment they came to deal with dockyards, Wales shrank into the small dimensions of a section or locality. This was a loan Bill, and the present generation benefited at the expense of posterity. Therefore, it behoved them to see that the proposals made would meet the wants of the future. Nobody could deny that Pembroke was in a very inferior position compared with other dockyards. By this Bill, Devonport, Portsmouth and Chatham would be in a better position than before, while Pembroke remained where it was, so that the difference would become greater than ever. That was a very important consideration. In recent years they had found that the more rapidly the ships were built, the cheaper was the cost of construction. If Pembroke was in such a position that every ship laid down took two years longer to build, it would be so handicapped that the Naval Lords would be forced to give less and less work to Pembroke, because the return was less than from the other yards. If Pembroke was to be excluded from the Bill, he

  371
  could not help thinking that, notwithstanding the promise which the Civil Lord had held out, the Admiralty would have to consider whether Pembroke was to be maintained as a dockyard at all"—("Parliamentary Debates," vol. xxxiv., p. 521, 28th May 1895.)
  In the same speech, the noble Lord further said:—
  "He would put before the Committee from a Naval and national point of view why he thought these works at Pembroke should be included in the Bill. There were only four great naval dockyards in this country—Chatham, Portsmouth, Devonport, and Pembroke. Only three of these could build ships of the largest dimensions, and of them Pembroke was one. It was the most modern of the dockyards, and he thought the best laid out; and most of the work done there in recent years had been in connection with big ships, and therefore it was particularly fitted for building the class of ships which would be most required."—("Parliamentary Debates," vol. xxxiv., p. 521, 28th May 1895.)
  He observed on Vote X. in the Estimates a sum of £5,000, which was totally inadequate, and he wished to know what this was intended to be. It had been clearly demonstrated in the last and former Parliaments that Pembroke could not be a completing yard until it was possessed of a coaling jetty and sheer legs. At the present time Her Majesty's ships, after they were launched from the dockyard, had to be sent to a jetty three-quarters of a mile from the dockyard to have their boilers and machinery put into them and to be fitted. He asked, in common justice to Pembroke, that these necessary works should be undertaken, and he warned the First Lord, after the extravagant promises made by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, that unless their promises made before the General Election were in a substantial measure fulfilled, that the Welsh Members, as a whole, would adopt every legitimate means to secure for Pembroke Dockyard fair and equitable treatment in the disbursement of public money.
  SIR EDWARD GOURLEYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had commenced his very able and lucid statement regarding the Navy by dealing with its personnel. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to increase the number of men of all ranks from 88,500 to 93,700. The vital question which the country had to face was, whether the
  372
  number of men asked for was equal to the manning of the whole of the ships now ready, and which would be ready, for the pennant during the current financial year. He might say at the outset, that he was against this continual and costly increase in the Permanent Staff, and was in favour of an increase in and the reorganisation of the Naval Reserves. In order to ascertain whether the number of men asked for was sufficient or otherwise, it was necessary to deal with the ships under construction. There were now being built eight battleships, 21 cruisers, and 41 destroyers, besides torpedo-boats for harbour service. To meet the demand caused by these new vessels, the Government proposed to take 4,900 men for the 29 ships, exclusive of the torpedo destroyers. That only allowed 170 men for each ship, whereas the eight battleships alone would need 4,800 men. Therefore there would only remain 100 men to man the 21 cruisers and 41 destroyers. Then there were to be added to the ships coming forward five new battleships, four first-class, three second-class, and six third class cruisers, and 28 destroyers, which would require not fewer than 7,000 men. Where were these men to come from when these ships were ready? The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Admiralty could get plenty of men, but he had also admitted that, in these days of complex machinery and guns, the men must be trained. In these circumstances, he was justified in asking, how long did it take to train a man, whether sailor or marine, so that he might be up to date in all the duties that had to be discharged on board a man-of-war? He understood that, after passing through the education given on board a training-ship, it required 12 months to make a lad perfect in man-of war duties. Therefore it took three years to make a lad a sailor. He ventured to ask, first, what arrangements the Admiralty were going to make for manning the enormous fleet that was coming forward, either as regarded the Permanent Staff or the Reserves; and secondly, what provision had been made to make good waste in the event of war on an emergency? As far as he could make out, they had made no provision whatever to meet such demands. When the Admiralty sent out the Special Service Squadron the

  373
  other day, they had to impress every available man from the four quarters of the earth to man the ships, even men who had not completed their furlough after having returned from service of two or three years on foreign stations. But were there enough men at home to man the Reserves? It might be said that we had 4,000 in the Coastguard and 25,000 men in the Reserves. But could the Admiralty place their hands upon those men, and were they in every sense well-trained men, so as to be up to date in the knowledge of modern gunnery? A part of the Coastguard was already afloat with the Channel Squadron, whilst the Naval Reserves were scattered all over the globe. From the reports that had been received regarding those men who were on board the Channel Squadron, their shore training was a snare and a delusion, and they had to begin their training on board ship almost de novo. No doubt the men were the finest material in the world, but they were badly trained. The Naval Reserves, for instance, were trained in obsolete batteries, in obsolete ships, and with obsolete 18-pounder muzzle-loading guns. As far back as 21 years ago it was known at the Admiralty that the Naval Reserve was being drilled with obsolete guns; but that was only an illustration of the way in which things were managed at the Admiralty. All that was required was that the system should be reorganised on modern lines. The efficient manning of the Navy must be the very first and most important consideration of the Admiralty. It was just as important as the building of ships. To build ships and provide them with machinery and guns without having the men ready for them was, to his mind, to put the cart before the horse. But there was no reason why the Admiralty should not have a larger number of men in reserve. There were in connection with the Mercantile Marine something like 240,000 able seamen and firemen, besides about 110,000 to 120,000 men engaged in the fisheries, and 50,000 engaged in the inland navigation of the rivers in barges and such craft. All these men might be brought under the head of seafaring men, and there was no reason why the number of men attached to the Naval Reserve of the first and second class should not be raised from 25,000
  374
  to 50,000. Again, he thought that at least a portion of the Naval Reserve men ought to be sent to sea every year on board a modern ship to be properly trained for at least a month. No doubt the men might object to this, but their objections might be overcome by more liberal treatment. Men in the Mercantile Marine received good wages, and if the Admiralty wished to induce these men to join the Reserve, they should be prepared to give them the same wages, and pensions, on all fours with the pensions accorded to men in the Navy. He was totally opposed to an increase of the permanent staff, seeing that no effort had been made to utilise and reorganise the Naval Reserve. Every 15,000 men of the permanent staff cost about £100 a head, while on the other hand, the country might and could have an efficient reserve of 50,000 trained men for not more than £10 or £15 a head. But there was another point to which he would like to call attention, and it was this. The late Admiral Hornby, than whom there were few higher authorities, advocated the creation of a Naval Reserve proper out of the men who did not re-enter the service after their first term of 12 years. The services of these men ought to be retained to the country in the same way as the services of the men leaving the Army were retained. As to the number of men who rejoined for a second term, according to the last Parliamentary Return, when we had between 50,000 and 60,000, only about 10,000, or about 20 per cent. of the whole rejoined. The country annually lost all their fine fighting material, which might be retained; and to his mind it was suicidal on the part of the Admiralty not to devise some sort of scheme by which the services of these men might be retained. Why did the men refuse to rejoin? It was owing to a variety of causes. First, the arbitrary treatment on board ship; secondly, the quarter-deck and court-martial system; thirdly, there was no chance of retiring when once a man re-entered; fourthly, the method of giving leave; fifthly, the compulsory wearing of uniform when on leave; sixthly, the long Commissions abroad, frequently in unhealthy climates; seventhly, insufficient pay to maintain a wife and family; and eighthly, the keeping of conduct sheets, as though in

  375
  prison, throughout a man's entire service. These were complaints which the men had always placed before the Admiralty, and he thought the time had arrived when the Admiralty ought to consider them in order that the great bulk of the men might be induced to re-enter. Going back to the Naval Reserve, he urged, that not only ought it to be reorganised, but the number should be increased from 25,000 to 50,000. It was of the highest importance that the country should know and understand that in the event of emergency there were men on whom it could rely for the purpose of sending to sea sufficiently manned, not only the ships in reserve, but the ships coming forward.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLANthought that the House and the country did not realise the value to be placed on the engineer staff on board our warships. Who were the men upon whom the value of our valuable ships depended? They were the engineers and artificers, and it was a source of great grievance with the engineer officers that they were marked by a great and gross caste distinction which ought to be removed from their Commissions. Take, for example, an engineer in charge of a torpedo-boat destroyer. He had served five years, say, at Keyham College, then he passed on to sea as a junior, and in course of time he rose to be first-class assistant. By this time he had served 15 years, while the commander put in charge of the vessel might be only 22 years of age. Why should a man going through such a training, who was charged with the care of valuable machinery, who was engineer, boatswain, and practically carpenter—why should such a man only rank after the executive officer. It was high time the present derogatory crest-mark should be taken away from such men. Even the paymasters and the surgeons got more pay than the engineers, on whose shoulders rested the responsibility of great and valuable ships. Let the First Lord take away that which rankled in the breast of every engineer in the Navy, and he would remove a great source of discontent. Coming to the artificers, he had just received a letter from a gentleman respected by the Admiralty who
  376
  held a great position in the engineering staff, and here was what he said:—
  "I do bitterly complain that, strive as we may, the Admiralty consistently ignore us."
  And, alluding to the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty at Lewes, added:—
  ''They regard us as of less importance to the British Navy than seamen and marines. I hope you will remember the position of our artificers, who enter the Navy from outside, and who are the backbone of our staff."
  What was an artificer? There was a notion abroad that he was a man employed in the engine-room to put oil into a series of small holes. An artificer was a man who had served five years of apprenticeship in an engine factory. Throughout those five years the lad had to go through his training of fitting and turning, and night attendance at practical schools of drawing and other instruction. In due time he passed an examination at Chatham, and was entered in one of Her Majesty's ships as an artificer. When he went on board he was sent down below to work upon the engines, to overhaul the pumps, and generally to take the working of the engines under his charge. Thenceforth there was no hope for him. The moment he entered as an artificer all hope was banished from his breast. He saw no higher position in the Navy before him. He toiled night and day, stood his watches, in cold and wet, calm and storm, but there was no prospect of rising for him at all. In every other branch of the service there was always some chance of advancement. Why not in the case of the artificer? ["Hear, hear!"] Did a gunner serve five years' apprenticeship? Or a boatswain? Had he a scientific training? No. And yet here was the grandest body of men in the service, and the Admiralty would not even give them warrant rank. Why didn't they open the door to them, and enable them to be engineer officers? That would stimulate them with ambition. A man who had no ambition was no man at all. He could relate a telling and pathetic incident in connection with the engineers. The Committee would remember Her Majesty's ship Resolution, and how she nearly foundered in the Bay of Biscay.

  377
  Who saved that ship? When the ventilator covers were washed away and the sea came pouring down into the stokehole, and the fires were being drenched out, who stood by the engines up to their waists in water, not for an hour, but for 48 hours? It was the engine room artificers. Their one supreme thought was to save the ship. They were within an ace of going down, and the ship would have foundered as surely as the Victoria did when she collided with the Camperdown, but for the gallant pluck and sustained determination of the engine-room artificers. If promotion were given to the artificers, the Admiralty need no longer be anxious for the engineering staff, because they would be making engineers. At present artificers were in charge of the machinery of some torpedo boats and gun boats; but these men had the responsibility without the rank. The engineering branch of the service, officers and artificers, would never have justice until the old system at the Admiralty was altered. The Board of Admiralty was composed of gallant admirals and captains for whom he had the highest respect, but they all belonged to the executive branch of the service. They knew nothing about engineering. In these days of science, the old system must be broken up; and a couple of engineer officers should be placed on the Board of Admiralty, to represent that great engineering staff on whom so much responsibility rested. He appealed with no personal or selfish motive to the First Lord of the Admiralty to break down the hopeless system under which the artificers were now employed. Let him delete from his engineer's commissions the words ''to rank with but after.'' They bore the stigma of degradation. Let the engineer-officers' rank be in keeping with their responsibilities, and let the artificers have some hope, when only a stroke of the pen was required to give it. If this reform were effected, he would guarantee to give the Admiralty within 12 months at least 20 engine-room artificers from his own place. But he feared that he was speaking to deaf ears; to ears barbetted with steel plates. He had often been told that the Admiralty was a close corporation, and that nothing could be done.
  378
  But this proposal of his was to make the Navy more efficient, without spending a penny.
  CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTSwished to assure the hon. Member that there was no such democratic institution in the world as a Naval Mess. Every officer who joined had to make his own position, no matter what his rank. If he were a good comrade, who knew his work and did it, his position would be assured; and if he were a disagreeable person, no matter what rank the Admiralty might give him, his position would not be satisfactory. As to the engine-room artificers, he echoed what had been said as to the value of that class of men, and he should be glad to see the door opened to them to rise to a higher position. But it was impracticable that every engine-room artificer should be a warrant officer; because, according to the customs of the service, the officer must ''stand off,'' and promotion would prevent the artificer from using the file and hammer in the practical work of his position. [''Nonsense!'' from Mr. W. ALLAN.] As to the term ''petty,'' it was of very long standing in the Navy; and for centuries had been borne by men who had done honourable service in all parts of the world. There was nothing in the title of a petty officer that a man need be anything but proud of. The statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, made on Monday last, would give great satisfaction to the Navy and to the country. Some had said that it was not complete enough. Its strong point, in his opinion, was its completeness, inasmuch as it provided for every branch of the service equally. It provided for a steady increase in the number of men by 2,000 a year; and as to the contention that there were not enough men to man all the ships that would shortly be built, no Government would think of keeping every ship which was ready for sea in commission. It would be quite unnecessary, and the cost would be greater than the country would stand. Besides, it would be a bad thing for the men and for the service, if there were a larger number of men enlisted and trained than could be sent to sea. A few years ago he had seen a number of boys who had

  379
  passed through the training-ship, detained at the depôt at Devonport for nearly a year, and occupied with the work of ''dockyard horses,'' in moving things about. To train a larger number of boys and seamen than could be employed was a great mistake. With regard to the Marines, he regretted that a larger provision had not been made for an increase in that force. He was aware that the barrack accommodation at Walmer was not large enough to accommodate a very great increase in the number of men, but, as he noticed that new barracks were about to be completed, he sincerely hoped a arger number of he Marines would be enrolled. An increase in the force was especially necessary in view of the large number of ships in commission, and of the fact that our ''fleet reserve'' had skeleton crews. He awaited with interest the publication of the scheme in regard to officers, in the hope that he would find some steps were to be taken to accelerate the flow of promotion amongst the Lieutenants. He, in common with all officers in the service, welcomed the improvement in the position of the warrant officers, and agreed with the suggestion made the other night that chief gunners, boatswains and carpenters should be called fleet gunners, boatswains and carpenters. He was exceedinly glad the Admiralty had at length adopted the plan so long talked of—viz., the replacement of the Britannia and the second ship, which had been made as much unlike ships as possible, by a College ashore. The general conditions of life in the College would be better, and an important point was that instead of having a tender attached to the College like the present one, which was practically useless, there was, he understood, to be a sloop, on board which the cadets could drill to some purpose. The First Lord had also told them the age of entry was to be advanced by a year. That was a step in the right direction. It might be said a year would not make a great deal of difference, but it would make some. In many things it would make a considerable difference, because during that year school candidates for naval cadet-ships would be better grounded in algebra and trigonometry which, after all, were the basis of all naval officers' work, scientific education. In
  380
  connection with the training of the officers, and also of the men, of the fleet, he desired to say a word or two on the subject of a training squadron. The First Lord expressed himself in favour of a training squadron. The large majority of naval officers capable of forming an opinion were in favour of maintaining a training squadron. There had been and there was now a certain amount of opposition. It was held that, inasmuch as all our warships are propelled by steam, it was a waste of time to take men on board a ship that was nearly always under sail. That opposition was dying away, because the more officers served in a training squadron, the more they found the advantage of the drill. Any officer who could handle a ship under sail could do so under steam. He hoped that before long they would find the training squadron so increased that a very much larger proportion of the commissioned executive officers, and a larger proportion of the seamen and all the cadets, would pass a period of service on board of it. He also hoped at the same time that the commanding officers might be allowed to see a little more of the cadets and midshipmen, because after all they were to be officers first. It had been urged that no real training for war purposes was got on a squadron under sail. He disputed that contention, and remarked that two of the greatest authorities we ever had on steam tactics, the late Admirals of the Fleet, Sir Thomas Symons and Sir Geoffrey Hornby, were well known for their skill in handling ships under sail. In mentioning Sir Thomas Symonds he wished to say it was in a great measure due to the untiring exertions of that gallant officer that the Navy was in its present satisfactory condition. Turning to the question of the Naval Reserves, he could fully hope that ere long a large increase would be made in that force, because we must rely upon it. We could not keep enough men permanently engaged to man all our ships, and therefore we must depend upon reserve stokers and seamen. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Havelock Wilson) referred very eloquently to the fact that there was a decrease in the number of British seamen in the Mercantile Marine. That circumstance was to be

  381
  regretted, and he would cordially welcome any step Parliament might take to remedy the evil. But there were other resources. There was the fishing population, and he was quite sure that if the distinction between first and second class reserve men were removed, that was, if the fishermen were allowed to qualify for the post of first-class reserve men, we should get a very much larger supply if we did not get all the men we required. He had had the honour of being in charge of a battery where a large number of fishermen drilled, and he found them a hardy, temperate, and a thoroughly reliable body of men. In time of war they would be found just as efficient as the merchant seamen who went on foreign service, and he strongly advised that the disability of fishermen should be removed. There was the question of mobilisation. He knew quite well that the commissioning of the Flying Squadron was performed without any strain upon our resources, but that was not entirely due to the Admiralty. It was in great measure due to the establishment of the Naval Intelligence Department. Without that Department the Admiralty could not do their work as efficiently as they did. He hoped the Intelligence Department would be much further developed, for the more ample and complete the information officers received in times of emergency the more effectively they could apply the resources under their command. Proof of this might be gathered from the experience of the recent war between China and Japan, in which the necessity of a full and efficient Intelligence Department was keenly felt. In speaking on the point of new construction, the Leader of the Opposition was understood to say that he thought we might have some battle ships of comparatively small coal-carrying capacity in the Channel, because the fleet would not be allowed to leave the Channel in time of danger. All authorities on naval tactics would dispute that statement. He should be sorry for the admiral who was debarred from seeking or pursuing an enemy because some of his ships were of small coal-carrying capacity. ["Hear, hear!"] Coast defence ships were now practically obsolete. Such a ship was useful for one purpose only, namely, as a sort of floating fort. He hoped no more of them would be
  382
  built. He was glad to see that so many cruisers were to be built, but he would press on the attention of the Admiralty the importance of having among the large cruisers, or what would be better still, of having, in addition, vessels of 18 knots speed, capable of carrying 800 or 1,000 men beyond their crews. In time of peace such vessels could be economically utilised as troop ships, and in case of emergency could be readily armed and equipped. There was another point of importance touching the constructive programme, and in regard to which we were behind some foreign nations. He referred to the want of armoured water line belts on our ships. A vessel of the proposed build and the proposed high rate of speed would incur serious risks at sea unless strengthened by a water line armour belt. Contact with floating wreckage might knock a hole in her, and thus render her ineffective. He thought the absence of such armour belts was a weak point in our vessels, excellent as they were, and he hoped the Admiralty would give their attention to it. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, the manner in which the proposed enormous increase in the Navy Estimates had been received in the House and the country was a striking testimony to the clearness and ability of the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and also showed how deeply the country had been moved by recent events. He had, however, listened with some surprise and regret to the proposals of the Government. There was a large surplus this year, and they were all hoping for some reduction of taxation which might have improved trade and benefited agriculture in its present state of depression. Moreover, the speech from the Throne gave grounds for hoping that the anxieties of the first weeks of the year had passed away. But whatever might be their regret in regard to the proposals of the Government, it must be remembered that the Government made them with a deep sense of responsibility, and as even the Leaders of the Opposition felt that the increase ought not to be opposed, he could not undertake the responsibility of voting against it. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that the increase was necessitated by the foreign policy of the Government; but, on the

  383
  contrary, it was forced on the Government by the policy of other countries. He did not share the gloomy views expressed by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean on the previous night, for he could not bring himself to believe that any number of foreign countries were likely at the present time to combine against England in case of war. It might be that England was not so popular abroad as they could wish, because our feelings and sentiments were not understood, but he was confident if foreign nations realised the unanimous desire of the English people for peace and friendship, that that unpopularity would pass away. At the same it was well that it should be known that any foreign country which attacked us would soon find that it had other enemies than Great Britain to meet. [Cheers.] Turning to the financial part of the Government proposals, he might say that he was by no means clear as to the mode in which it was proposed to deal with the surplus of the present year. Any tampering with the Sinking Fund would be very unfortunate. It was important not only that we should be financially strong, but that other countries should be made to understand how strong we were, and if the necessary expenditure could have been met by a moderate increase of taxation, without interfering with the Sinking Fund, such a course would have given foreign countries the greatest idea of our financial strength. The reduction of debt had greatly increased the financial strength of the country. In 25 years £150,000,000 of debt had been paid off, which was practically a reserve of £150,000,000, and which we could spend and yet be no worse off than before the reduction began. This fact was of great importance; £150,000,000 of money was the potentiality of our ships, or men, or arms, or all three. Moreover, the very credit of the position was a great element of strength. ["Hear, hear!"] If it could be said that at the first threat of war we were at once compelled to reconsider our arrangements, and suspend part of our Sinking Fund, we should greatly weaken our financial position. At the close of the last year our unfunded debt amounted to over £17,000,000. Why should not some of this be paid off? He understood that his right hon. Friend denied that the course proposed could be
  384
  considered a suspension of the Sinking Fund, and before going into the question further, he would, no doubt, give them his views somewhat more in detail. The two complications in which we had recently been involved had been directly on account of our Colonies—one, that of Guiana, and the other of South Africa. In neither case were they affairs primarily or directly affecting the mother country. This raised the question whether there should not be some Imperial fund for the defence of the Empire as a whole. The subject seemed to be one which, in their own interest, the Colonies should consider, for, of course, as long as we bore the whole expense of such demands, we must in the main consider our own requirements. ["Hear, hear!"] If, however, it was necessary to face this immense increase, could not some steps be taken, if possible, to enable future reductions to be made. The whole condition of Europe was most alarming. Not only was the weight of taxation almost unbearable, but debt was rapidly increasing. France had increased hers no less than £600,000,000 in 25 years. There could be but one end to this. Before many years are over we shall have another outburst of revolution unless some steps were taken to reduce this enormous expenditure on warlike preparations. As time went on it would be absolutely impossible for Great Britain, however much they might desire it, to bear the whole burden of providing for the security of the Empire, and he thought that, if the Colonies considered how the matter stood, they would find it was to their interest to bear their share of the Imperial burdens. It must necessarily follow that, so long as the whole expense of maintaining the Navy fell upon the people of this country, the Navy must primarily be used for the security of Great Britain. While they would wish to help the Colonies as far as they could, they must take care of themselves and protect their own shores and interests in the first instance. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer said they could not expect friendly relations with foreign Powers so long as they insisted on shaking their fists in their faces. He did not think it could fairly be said that they had been shaking their fists in the face of any foreign Power. ["Hear, hear!"] Other

  385
  Powers had threatened them very unnecessarily, and he thought the people of this country had shown great self-command and great dignity under very great provocation. [Cheers.] He was sure that in this increase of their Navy nothing was further from the thoughts of the Government, nothing was further from the the intentions of the House or from the wishes of the people than that it should be supposed to be in any way a threat directed against foreign Powers. [Cheers.] There was one way in which they might make it perfectly clear that they were not thrusting their fists in their face, but were really stretching out to them the hand of friendship. It was understood, when the Declaration of Paris was arrived at, that most of the countries concerned were willing, and indeed, anxious, to make commercial ships free of capture and seizure. The question was left at present in a very unsatisfactory position, and he could not but believe that most of the States would gladly fall into an arrangement whereby private property in ships should be rendered free from capture and seizure if the proposal were made. If that proposal were made by this country, he thought it would show clearly that this increase of the Navy was not intended in an unfriendly spirit to other countries. If the Government would make such a suggestion to other countries he believed they would have shown that they were anxious for peace and good will amongst the nations, and that they would have taken a great step forward in diminishing some of the horrors of war and in doing something to promote the civilisation of the world.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, that, as one who, until July last, had some responsibility for Admiralty administration, the House would perhaps expect him to offer a few observations upon the proposals now before the House. At the outset he should like heartily to acknowledge that both the First Lord of the Admiralty and the First Lord of the Treasury had treated with fairness and with a total absence of Party recrimination the work which they found in hand when they succeeded to Office. He hoped the same spirit would characterise platform utterances, and that both those right hon. Gentlemen would use their
  386
  influence to prevent this subject, which they were all anxious to keep clear of mere Party recriminations, becoming a topic of that kind on the platform. Unprecedented in amount as were these Estimates, and regrettable as it undoubtedly was that such a large burden should have to be thrown upon the British taxpayer, he was personally quite unable to criticise in any hostile spirit the demands put before the House, and this for more than one reason. First and foremost was the reason that when any Government came down to the House, and on its responsibility made a demand on the House for military or naval expenditure and said that expenditure was necessary for the safety of the country, no Opposition, whatever its views, and no House of Commons, ever refused, or even reduced, the demand. He might add to this that he recognised in the scheme a large number of the proposals which would certainly have been made by Lord Spencer's Board had they remained in Office,—shipbuilding proposals, for example, which formed part of Lord Spencer's programme. The House would therefore see that, personally, he felt it impossible to speak in opposition to the proposals as a whole and was indisposed to criticise unduly minor details. He recognised that nothing tended so much to check open warfare between the "outs" and the "ins," at least of the Admiralty, as continuity of administration. He could not refuse to recognise that there was much continuity in the proposals which were now before the House, and he ventured to express his pleasure at the acceleration which the present Government had been able to introduce with respect to some part of the work of their predecessors. When the late Government came into office they found a large number of ships which were being built under the Naval Defence Act in hand, and they resisted the temptation—to which he thought they were not personally much disposed, but to which other Governments in the past, perhaps, had been—of embarking with undue haste upon some new policy of building a totally new type of ships and leaving on the stocks ships in process of construction designed in the time of their predecessors, instead of completing them with as much rapidity as possible. What they did was to accelerate the

  387
  completion of the Naval Defence Act ships, and it was satisfactory to hear how useful they had been at the present juncture. ["Hear, hear!"] There were one or two remarks he should like to make in connection with that acceleration. It was extremely satisfactory, considering how very limited their source of supply for armour for battleships was, to find that the Sheffield firms had been able to turn out armour more rapidly than they anticipated, and had greatly increased their output. With respect to what the First Lord said as to armaments he had really nothing to complain of. The late Government took enough money in the Estimates for the rate of progress they anticipated, as the right hon. Gentleman had very fairly admitted. Whilst there was always difficulty in framing Estimates which provided for works, contract work, and stores, there was a special difficulty about the Armament Vote, and until there was more certainty as to what contractors could do, and, in particular, what Woolwich Arsenal could do, there would always be difficulty in estimating accurately. Coming to the shipbuilding proposals of the Government, he rejoiced to see that the scheme of the First Lord of the Admiralty under whom he served—Lord Spencer—was being carried out, with certain important additions and certain minor changes. These minor changes were doubtless considered necessary by the Government and the Naval Lords in view of recent experience. As to the types of cruisers, all these were the same as were settled in the time of the late Government, and he had nothing to say in the way of criticism. With regard to the designs for battleships it would be satisfactory to the House to know that they were prepared by Sir William White, and had the sanction of his authority. ["Hear, hear!"] He could not pass from the name of Sir William White without saying that it would be difficult to exaggerate the value of his work, and he was sure the House would rejoice to learn that there was a prospect of his early recovery of health. [Cheers.] He understood the new battleships were to have the same armaments as the Majestic and the Magnificent—that was to say, they were to have 12-in. wire guns and the same secondary armament. They were also to have the same power of coal endurance.
  388
  Something was said upon this subject by the Leader of the Opposition the previous night, and it would be gratifying to the House to learn that the point the right hon. Gentleman emphasised was really met by ships already in existence. There were very powerful ships which in times past were first-class battleships, but which had not got the coal endurance now considered necessary for ships that had to do service in distant waters. These ships would always be valuable for the purpose to which his right hon. Friend had referred, but personally he confessed he was glad to learn that the new ships were constructed with such an amount of coal endurance as would enable them to fulfil the conditions so admirably sketched by the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay—namely, that they should not only be capable of seeking out the enemy, but also of pursuing him in any waters into which he might go. ["Hear, hear!"] He, for one, rejoiced that the coal capacity of the ships had not been in any way diminished. The ships would have the same coal protection and the same arrangement of armour that existed in the Majestic and the Magnificent. Though they would have thinner side armour, they would have the advantages of greater speed with less draught and less cost, and an important point was they would be able to pass through the Suez Canal. He should not be satisfied with these ships unless he felt sure, from what had been stated by the responsible Minister, that they were, for offensive or defensive purposes, equal to the ships they might have to meet in war. There had been no yielding to the small party who advocated little ships against big ships, who argued that three or four little ships were better than one big one. The highest authorities were almost unanimous that our safety really lies in superiority, ship for ship. For himself, he did not speak as a naval expert, but simply as one who had studied these subjects for the last few years, sitting at the feet of great authorities. It was said that three or four ships could beat one. He would state two objections to that theory. The first was that we should be landed in far greater expense if we built our ships on that principle, and the second objection

  389
  was that experience was against the theory of three or four ships against one. Take the result of the experience of the old wars. Captain Mahan, one of the greatest naval experts, in his book on "The Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution and Empire," where he described Lord Howe's engagement, on 28th May 1794, said:—
  ''The Revolutionnaire was nobly fought, and the concentration upon her, while eminently judicious, served to bring out vividly the advantage, which should never be forgotten, of one heavy ship over several smaller, even though the force of the latter may, in the aggregate, be much superior."
  The same lesson was taught us during the recent war between China and Japan. Captain Mahan, in his article in the Century for May last, on "Lessons from the Yalu Fight,'' said:—
  "As regards systems, the result of this episode is a drawn battle, which may be summed up broadly as the successful resistance of two ships, armoured, with a joint displacement of 15,000 tons, to five ships, partly protected, of 19,000 tons. This, as far as it goes, favours the view that a given amount of tonnage in one, or a few big ships, possesses a decided advantage over the same, or even a greater amount, divided among several. This view is also in strict accord with the general teachings of warfare, that force concentrated under one command is more efficient than that disseminated among several. This conclusion must not, of course, be pressed to absurdity, but tempered, as all practical conclusions are, by moderation and discretion. A man may consider one 10,000-ton ship better than two of 6,000, without wanting one of 20,000 tons at all, for sufficient reasons. Our fore-runners found a 74-gun ship absolutely superior to two frigates—for the latter to attack was considered folly—yet the 74 was their norm for the battleship, and only exceptionally was exceeded in size."
  He could quote other high authorities in the same direction. He rejoiced that the principle that our ships ought to be superior to the ships of the enemy was recognised by the present, as it was by the late First Lord of the Admiralty. As to the number of battleships, five additional ships, or thirteen in all under construction, he would say nothing. The Government were responsible for the proposal. But certainly the First Lord of the Admiralty advanced an extremely forcible argument when he referred to certain first-class battleships, now 10 or 12 years old, which must ere long be relegated to the second line.
  390
  The late Naval Administration were much attacked on two points. He admitted that they took two bold steps, first with respect to the large number of torpedo-destroyers they ordered—and he noted with satisfaction that the quality of them had been praised by the present First Lord, as well as that he was continuing the policy of building torpedo boat destroyers in large numbers. On the other point on which the present, like the late Board of Admiralty were attacked, from the internal knowledge he had gained, he thought the Admiralty were on firm ground. Although it had been at the outset a bold departure to adopt water-tube boilers, the pains taken beforehand to ascertain the experience, especially of the French, in water-tube boilers, were immense. An engineer officer of the Admiralty was sent on a long ocean voyage in two of the largest merchant steamers fitted with water-tube boilers, trading to Australia, and another able Admiralty official spent some time in France informing himself thoroughly on the subject. The result was to convert some of those who had been most opposed to the change to the opinion that the Admiralty would be right in introducing tubulous boilers into most of the torpedo boat destroyers and into the new cruisers. The evidence already before the Admiralty on the subject, and received long before he left, and that which had been presented to Parliament, as well as the evidence received from French sources, all pointed in the same direction, and he was satisfied, and he was sure the House would be in time, that the Admiralty had not only acted wisely, but with great promptitude and foresight in taking the steps they did to introduce water-tube boilers. He would defer his remarks on the works proposals in the Bill, only observing that the case for a third dock at Gibraltar had not been stated, and needed to be stated to the House. He would also say nothing on manning until they had heard the promised statement of the First Lord on that extremely important subject. For some time there had been great anxiety at the Admiralty with regard to certain difficulties in the education of naval cadets. These difficulties of discipline were due partly to the crowded state of the ship, and perhaps partly to

  391
  the fact that the masters could not live on board, and be brought into personal contact with the daily life of the boys to the same extent as in public schools. He was not at all surprised that the Government had come to the conclusion that a college on shore would afford a better training than was now given. He was prepared to admit, with the gallant Admiral the Member for Eastbourne, that there might be some loss, but not so much as he suggested, for after all, the Britannia was only an overcrowded old hulk, quite inadequate in many respects. But it would be necessary to make life on the water and practice in boating and sailing marked features of the future system. He cordially wished success to the experiment about to be made to defeat the crammers. One of the greatest drawbacks to the present system was the opening afforded to cramming by the examination, and he hoped that in future it might be possible for boys of ordinary ability to go from school direct to the training college without the intervention of the crammer. At present, exceptional boys could do this. But parents did not find that other boys could pass without special cramming. It was of real importance that the quality of the officers of the Navy should be maintained, and that we should secure the best available material for the Service, direct from public schools. In conclusion, he hoped that his remarks had been free from Party spirit, and that Party recrimination with respect to the Navy would be a thing of the past both in that House and on outside platforms. Let them all co-operate in promoting the efficiency and strength of our national defences. ["Hear, hear!"]
  CAPTAIN BETHELLsaid, that a most important result of our naval policy had been not only the building of ships, but the getting rid for ever of some fatal errors which undoubtedly did much damage to our Navy in the past. We had got rid of the box citadel, of low seaboard, and the consequent necessity of carrying guns very low, and of muzzle-loading guns; and we had arrived at well-defined types of vessels which, unless some new discovery were made, were likely to be reasonably permanent. He did not think it wise to rely upon very large ironclads
  392
  which could not go into shoal water, where operations had very often to be undertaken in war. In times past such operations had been left to cruisers of great capacity, but the new cruisers would not be able to undertake this work. They had no armour, they had no light armour to perform those duties which used to be performed. His right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, in his excellent speech made yesterday, criticised with some severity the number of ships which his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty proposed to build in the next few years. The First Lord of the Treasury answered. Those two speeches—that of the Leader of the House and that of the First Lord of the Admiralty were not at variance in the least. A great coalition would not necessarily have cohesion, but, at all events, they must be prepared for something enormously large; but he thought it was just for the Government to rely on that want of cohesion which had ever been shown. But if he followed his right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, when he urged his criticism against the number of ships, he rather failed to establish his case; at least he did not fortify his case with a very close argument. He rather evaded numerical calculations, showing what he thought they ought to be prepared to do; and he thought that on the whole his right hon. Friend was right. He thought he did not take sufficiently into consideration certain facts, one of which was that this country could build a great deal quicker than any other country. As to the alleged differences in the speeches of the Leader of the House and the First Lord of the Admiralty, he failed to see it. It had been said that the First Lord of the Admiralty declared in his opening speech that the Admiralty, without reference to other Powers, had considered what were the requirements of this country, and had made their proposals accordingly. On the other hand, it was said the First Lord of the Treasury took two of the strongest Powers and made the calculations on that basis. The fact of the matter was the two statements were in perfect agreement. The First Lord of the Admiralty said their calculations were founded upon general views; they took into consideration the vessels that

  393
  other Powers had without forming too close a numerical calculation, and they were formed on foundations of that sort, and from all that he understood, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) to say, he did not take a different view. If the First Lord of the Treasury had told them that their ships were to be equal to the ships of two of the strongest Powers, he would have adopted undoubtedly a theory which naval writers for the last ten years had specifically declined to accept. ["Hear, hear!"] They had declined to accept the theory as to the Navy being equal to two of the strongest Powers, and for very obvious reasons. The problem which this country had to face had been the same for the last two centuries. What the country would look for was a Navy, a sufficient number of vessels to watch, block, and fight the ships of the countries with which they might be at war. He should not pursue the matter, because a good many Gentlemen wished to take part in the Debate, but he should like to mention other subjects to which his right hon. Friend opposite had referred in his speech last night. One of these questions was the manning of the Navy. Of that his right hon. Friend took a very pessimist view. He (Sir Charles Dilke) was of opinion that at the end of three years, at the present rate, there could not possibly be enough men to man all their ships. [Sir C. DILKE: "Or even now."] He said now, and he said it last year, that if all their men were called out, they should just have had enough; but this fact had been brought into play during the past year initiated by the present Government, and it was a most important factor in the question of the manning of the Navy—namely, the Admiralty were trying to get a sufficient number of boys at a greater age, so that the period of training was much reduced. Now, on this question of manning, he would presume to offer a suggestion to his right hon. Friend. He should allow for the fact that they were getting a larger number of boys at an older age. Personally, he was never a believer in catching boys very young. Why should they not graft on the present system a system of getting boys or young men to go into the Service for three or four years until they were effectively drilled, and then adding them to the Reserve? They must not
  394
  shut their eyes to the fact that good as the material of the Reserve was, it was only a partially drilled Reserve. Still, he agreed with the First Lord of the Admiralty that they must not expect to have a full crew for all ships—for it would be unreasonable to keep such a large number of men idle. He thought that, instead of such a system, there should be a real Reserve in the sense of being a Reserve composed of thoroughly trained men.
  MR. G. W. WOLFFthought he might venture to say that the House generally was pleased with the Estimates submitted, and if there was any fault at all to be found with those Estimates, it was that they did not go far enough in the direction of strengthening the Navy. He was pleased to see that the Government were going not only to build ships, but to give their attention to such matters as the future extension of the dock accommodation, hospitals, training ships, and the manning of the ships, for without these accessories, the ships would be of comparatively little use. Above all things, he was glad there were to be three docks at Gibraltar, and while on that subject he should thank the First Lord of the Admiralty for his kind allusions to his late colleague and partner for so many years, Sir Edward Harland, who had taken the greatest interest in urging the construction of those docks for the use of the Service. [''Hear, hear!"] He intended to confine his observations to two matters of detail of which possibly he had some knowledge. The first was the manning of the Navy, and the other the plan on which he thought the proposed new ships ought to be built. The remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Allan) in reference to the engineers and artificers had his fullest sympathy. He could not see why artificers should be debarred from ever rising to the position of engineer officers. He would not say a word against the present system if it were an unalterable law in the Service that a man should begin at the bottom and go up by a system of training to the position of engineer or any other position of importance. But recently the Admiralty had taken 100 officers from the Marine Service. These men had not been specially trained on board a man-of-war;

  395
  but nevertheless they were deemed fit for this work, and were very properly appointed. In like manner he thought that if an artificer by study, qualified himself for the position of engineer, and showed his qualification by examination, he ought to be appointed an engineer. He did not think it would do any harm to the Navy. On the contrary, he thought that by offering chances of promotion in this way more recruits would be got for every branch of the Navy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had given some alarming figures showing the great want of sailors; and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough had painted that dark picture darker still. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had quoted certain figures relating to the number of foreign sailors in our Mercantile Marine. He did not know where the right hon. Gentleman had obtained those figures, but before he accepted them he should like to know more about the matter.
  SIR C. DILKEsaid, that the figures to which the hon. Member had referred were to be found in the Report of the Registrar General of Merchant Seamen, which was an annual return laid before Parliament, and which went into the subject in some detail.
  MR. WOLFFsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had deducted from the total number of seamen in the Mercantile Marine 7,000 Lascars and 9,000 yachtsmen. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman had deducted the yachtsmen, who were in all probability very good sailors. Then the right hon. Gentleman deducted 30,000 foreign sailors, and thus reduced the number of the sailors of our Mercantile Marine by a large number. Of course, it might be a very good thing if British ships were always manned by British sailors, but shipowners did not carry on their business from patriotic or philanthropic motives. It was simply a question of cheapness whether shipowners employed foreign or British seamen on board their vessels. There were, however, other reasons that led to the employment of foreign seamen in our Mercantile Marine. For instance, it was an undisputed fact that the bulk of foreign seamen were more amenable to
  396
  discipline than British sailors were and were infinitely more sober. He did not know where the Admiralty proposed to get their men from to man the new vessels in case of war or of emergency, but he himself should look forward to the result with some anxiety. Owing to the different type of ship now forming the bulk of our Mercantile Marine we had far fewer sailors per thousand tons than we had in former days. For instance, a steam vessel of 4,000 tons required far fewer sailors than a sailing ship of 2,000 did. He was glad to see that it was proposed to engage older boys for the Navy. This question of the manning of the British Navy was a matter of great national importance and was well worthy of the attention of that House. There were one or two more points to which he should like to refer. As to the class of ships which the Government were going to build, the right hon. Baronet was in favour of building large ships. With regard to coast defence ships, he had had something to do with repairing and altering that class of vessel, and, in his opinion, they might do some service if they could lie at the mouth of harbours, but he was afraid that they would be useless at sea if any wind was blowing. He had always been in favour of building a number of third-class cruisers. It might be a luxury to other nations to have such vessels, but they were an absolute necessity for us. Unless some smaller unarmoured ships were provided, in the event of war breaking out we should suffer very severely. Then there was the question of the length of those ships. When he had spoken to Naval men on the necessity of increasing their length, they had always said, "Oh, you do not know how to fight a ship;" but, in the case of these third class cruisers, what was wanted was not so much fighting quality as the ability to go everywhere they were wanted, and that meant a far greater coal endurance. The only way that was obtainable was by greater length in proportion to tonnage. In conclusion, he wished to congratulate the Admiralty on the new system they had adopted of building ships as fast as they could. As a practical man, he congratulated the Admiralty on the speed with which they had turned out some of their ships. He thought it was creditable

  397
  to the Board; and if they continued to do the work in that way, this country would be able to place a fleet on the water quite equal to those Navies with which it was likely to come into contact.
  LIEUT.-GENERAL LAURIEwished to say a few words in regard to one matter of general policy which had not been touched on to any extent. With the increase of the Navy, there was to be an increase in the Naval bases and docks abroad, and he would like to call attention to one point, and that was the expense which must necessarily be involved in the production of these bases. This did not appear as an expense to be borne by the Navy; and yet it was involved in the maintenance of the Navy, and therefore came under Naval Expenditure. It had been mentioned that Mauritius would be selected as one place where a dock and Naval base was to be established. That meant that a garrison must be maintained there far in excess of what there was at present. 5,000 men would hardly be a sufficient garrison. A local supply of troops could not be relied on to any large extent there, as the population was not of British origin. It seemed to him that it would be much more desirable to establish these bases in places that were largely peopled by our own race. Australia had done wonderfully well at Sydney, and had undertaken the whole of the protection of the Naval bases in those parts. Simon's Bay had been spoken of; and if a base were established there, it would be protected by the troops in South Africa, and an increased garrison there would not be required. Again, if much was spent on Bermuda, it meant the supply of a large garrison from home; while if, on the other hand, the accommodation at Halifax were increased, the same precautions would not be necessary. Allusions had been made by the right hon. Member for the University of London and the hon. Member for Yarmouth to the exiguity of the contributions from the Colonies towards the expenses of the Navy. If they were speaking merely of money for the payment of sailors and the provision of ships there was no doubt some truth in what they said. But the Colonies contributed more largely than some people supposed, for they maintained the bases from which the Navy drew its supplies, and from which
  398
  it would conduct operations. He would give a practical instance of what was done in Canada when he commanded in Nova Scotia. When the garrison of Halifax was withdrawn for service in other parts of the North American station the whole defence of Halifax was entrusted to the Nova Scotia Militia. 15,000 men were placed under arms at the expense of the colonists and protected our naval base until the regular troops were able to return. What was done then would be done again on a larger scale if it should be necessary. That was a case where there were a distinct contribution from local funds to defensive purposes. There was no necessity for keeping our garrisons at war strength at these naval depôts, but it was desirable that we should know where to look for support, and how to bring our garrisons up to full strength when war should occur. Therefore, these depôts should be established where there was a population of our own blood, ready to strengthen the hands of the administration and to protect the base. There was another point to which he desired to call attention. In the days of our wars with Continental Powers our dockyards faced the Continent of Europe. In the future it would not be so much in the direction of France, or Holland, or Spain, that we might expect to meet the enemy as in the Atlantic, over which our food supplies and raw materials were mostly borne. He believed that it would be in the Western Atlantic that our great battles would be fought, and north of the Land's End we had no refitting yard worthy of name. But, both Pembroke Dockyard and Haulbowline Dockyard could be of great service if they were properly equipped and fitted up. He had been sorry to hear the hon. and learned Member for Waterford say that he intended to oppose every Vote on which there was an increase. He hoped that the hon. Member would reconsider the case of Haulbowline at any rate. Aspirations as they knew had been expressed that Ireland might become an independent nation. That was not likely to happen in our time, and he was most desirous that as long as Ireland remained part of our nation, she should have the same opportunities as England, of being useful in connection with the Fleet. He hoped, therefore, that Haulbowline would receive the grant which it

  399
  was proposed to allocate to it, and that it would be made an effective yard. He also hoped that Pembroke Dockyard, which he represented, would be made efficient. He urged that this should be done not only on local but also on Imperial grounds. As he had said, the Western Atlantic would be the scene of the great fights of the future, and as near as possible to that scene, they ought to have a dockyard where our fleet could refit and get ready to take the sea again. He was aware that intentions had been expressed both by the late and the present Board of Admiralty to make improvements at Pembroke Dockyard, but he regretted to say, that up to the present time no action had been taken to carry those intentions out. Practically nothing was proposed in these Estimates for the improvement of the dockyard. He hoped that proposals for the purpose were only deferred in order that a complete scheme might be elaborated and that before long, there would be a thoroughly satisfactory dockyard on our western seaboard for the use of the fleet that protected the enormous commerce that come into the Bristol Channel and the ports of Liverpool, Glasgow, &c. Up to the present Pembroke had had no chance of showing what it could do. In the days of wooden ships the dockyard completed them, but at present the vessels were launched at Pembroke. When the vessels were built the engines were put in and the vessel was sent round to Plymouth to be fitted out. The result was that neither dockyard could claim to have completed a vessel, and each fault was charged on one dockyard or the other. This should not be the case in respect of a dockyard where 13 vessels of war could be built at one time.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now dealing with a very particular question—namely, the construction of works at Pembroke Dock. He cannot deal with this in the general conversation on the first Vote; his remarks would be more applicable when Vote 10 is reached.
  LIEUT.-GENERAL LAURIEsaid, in that case he pressed for reconsideration of the general organisation of the several yards, to enable each to fit out vessels and place them complete in the hands of those who had to command and fight
  400
  with them. In connection with the question of Reserves he said, that we had lately seen the very last trooper manned by officers and sailors of the Royal Navy sailing for its last trip from Portsmouth. We were told we could not maintain a large body of surplus of sailors, because we had nothing for them to do. Those troopers were originally built, and manned, and fitted out, in order to employ our Reserve sailors in time of peace, and it seemed a pity to give them up. The question had been raised as to the possibility of obtaining a supply of additional seamen to man our vessels in the emergency of war. He suggested to the First Lord of the Admiralty that it might be desirable to extend the Naval Reserve Act to the Colonies. In North America alone we had 70,000 men accustomed to the sea, a large proportion of whom would be willing to join the Naval Reserve, and place their services at the disposal of this country in time of war. It might be desirable to endeavour to utilise the services of a certain number of these men so as to get in the thin end of the wedge, and in time of war to be able to employ those thorough sailors in manning our Navy.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth) moved the reduction of the Vote by 1,000 men, in order to condemn the immense Estimates and the stupendous expenditure laid before Parliament. It was time that some one should take this action, because he understood from the speeches of the Opposition Leaders that they were not going to take any particular part in opposing these large Estimates. They appeared to think that as the Estimates were brought forward on the responsibility of the Government, the Government must remain responsible for them. But he did not think that hon. Members in other parts of the House were bound by that doctrine, because he did not see what use the House of Commons was if it abandoned its right of discussion on the most important Question brought before it. He did not think, however, that he would get much support, for he read in The Times the other day that—
  "The opposition to the Naval expenditure would probably be confined to Mr. O'Kelly. … and his associates, with a handful of unconsidered Radicals."

  401
  He believed that the House would give a fair consideration even to the arguments of a minority. It was an inconsistent and grotesque policy we were pursuing in this matter in view of the declaration in the gracious Speech from the Throne that Her Majesty "continued to receive from foreign Powers the assurance of their friendly sentiments." He had not heard any argument which warranted the enormous expenditure of 58 millions entirely for defence. Here was a Christian nation, which could not settle matters with other Christian nations except by these tremendous preparations for mutual slaughter and destruction. He knew the admirals, generals and colonels rejoiced in the whole thing. They were never so happy as on this night when the Army and Navy Estimates were brought forward. He knew they regarded those who thought there was a better way of defending the country and settling disputes than by "ornamental murder" as a contemptible lot of people. Their motto was: "Cursed, not blessed, are the peace-makers." Still we hoped two or three voices would be raised to-night in support of the good old cause of peace, retrenchment and reform. [Laughter.] Yes; the whole thing had become a joke now. And, what was worse, he believed hon. Members represented their constituents in so regarding it. He believed the working men were as keen on spending this money as the House of Commons was. That was all the more reason why those who thought differently should not be silent. He disputed the soundness of the doctrine that for all time and in all circumstances this country was to be made impregnable from attack. In the first place, it was impossible. ["No, no!"] In the second place, life was not worth living if we were to go on in this way. What was the good of a man if he had to walk about in heavy armour all his life? [Laughter] They talked about this being an insurance of the national property, but the time comes when the insurance eats up the income, and we were rapidly approaching that time. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had referred to Sir Robert Peel's maxim, that "in time of peace we must, by retrenchment, consent to incur some risk." The right hon. Gentleman called that a prehistoric doctrine. Well,
  402
  he would far rather have the doctrine of a prehistoric statesman than the ravings of an up-to-date jingo. It was said that without a supreme Navy, our food supplies could not be brought into the country. But Lord Wolseley had declared his belief that nothing could prevent ships from landing cargoes on our shores. And why did the right hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet vote for this Navy which was to protect our food supplies, when his great object was to keep them out? The right hon. Member believed that too much corn would ruin his fellow-countrymen just as he (Sir W. Lawson) believed that too much drink would ruin them. There was no man in the House whom he honoured more than the right hon. Gentleman, because he was staunch and true. Pope said that an honest man was the noblest work of God; an honest politician was certainly the rarest work of God. The next argument was that the British Navy must be supreme. But why? It was not laid down in the Bible. When Russia tried to obtain fresh territory anywhere, how we denounced her! And why was it better to be supreme on sea than on land? If we talked so much about our supremacy, other nations would not stand it, and we should provoke that very combination against us to which the First Lord of the Treasury had referred. It was not for defence that these great armaments were got ready. It was an uneasy feeling as to our doings in the world. It was the conscience what "makes cowards of us all." It was because we wanted to cut a figure in the world along with the other nations, and to use these great armaments for another purpose than defence. Whenever England saw a country with any gold or valuable property in it, she went for it—if it were not very strongly defended. That was our national weakness. The right hon. Member for the University of London used to tell a story, illustrating the British character, about a farmer who always used to bother his landlord with absurd questions when they met out hunting. One day he said, "My lord, what's the news?" The answer was, "Oh, the Dutch have taken Holland." "By Jove," said the farmer, "We'll have them out of that pretty quick," That was the Englishman all

  403
  over; it was our glorious foreign policy. The Secretary for the Colonies called it "developing the estate." Lord Rosebery called it "pegging out claims." The able editors of our newspapers called it "opening up the furthest parts of the world to Christianity and civilisation," or, in other words, to the importation of gin and gunpowder. He called it robbery, because he was a "little Englander," and was proud of the name. He called it robbery because he was a Little Englander and proud of the name. That name meant an honest, humane, and a just England. He was unwilling to trust any Government—Liberal or Conservative—with these enormous means of carrying on evil practices, the machinery for mischief. He did not blame the First Lord of the Admiralty for introducing these Estimates and he did not blame the Party opposite for supporting them. They did not ask for half enough if they were going to rule the whole world and be supreme. [An HON. GENTLEMAN: "Hear, hear!"] If they wanted to go on that lay in accordance with the wishes of the Gentleman who cried "hear, hear!" they must have more ships, more men. They must have conscription and prepare for national bankruptcy very shortly. He hoped the people of the country and their representatives would be wise in time. Surely there were warnings enough of what this military spirit led to Look at Germany, the discontent there was a cause of great danger and difficulty. Look at Italy, she was in absolute peril of her very existence. Spain did not seem to be in a much better position. Would it not be a noble and godlike thing for this nation—this great, free nation of England—to take a course which would check all this military spirit, instead of stimulating it, because it is quite certain that this militarism is hurrying Europe to some great catastrophe? Could we not try a better spirit? Could we not try to make ourselves loved instead of feared throughout the world? In his humble opinion, the policy embodied in these Estimates was a policy of defiance, not defence; and he felt bound to oppose it, because he thought it was disparaging to our national character and injurious to the best interests of the people. He begged to
  404
  move a reduction of the Vote by 1,000 men and boys.
  Question proposed, "That 92,750 men and boys be employed for the said Services."—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)
  MR. J. DILLON MR. J. DILLON (Mayo, E.) moved, "That progress be reported."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's,)said, there was still a quarter of an hour left for discussion—[cries of "Ten minutes"]—which he hoped the Committee would occupy.
  MR. DILLONtrusted the First Lord of the Admiralty would not oppose the Adjournment. In the general Debate he wished to speak, but was closured.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid, that, in consenting to report progress, might he ask a favour in return—and that was, that the Naval Works Bill, which had been blocked for several nights by hon. Members from Ireland, might be allowed to proceed? ["No, no!"] The stage was formal, and he thought it would be to the convenience of the House that it should now be taken. ["No!"]
  DR. TANNERsaid, he was responsible for the blocking of the Bill, and he would be most willing to humiliate himself by withdrawing the block if it was the wish of his Leader that it should be withdrawn
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDthought the request of the right hon. Gentleman was most unreasonable, seeing the rapid progress which had been made with the Bill. He should certainly feel it his duty to object to the Bill being taken.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)did not think hon. Gentlemen would believe the First Lord of the Admiralty was unreasonable when they recollected that the real stage for the discussion of the Bill was the Second Reading. In consequence of the Naval Works Bill being a money Bill, there were two or three stages of a purely formal character. The Bill could not be printed until these formal stages had been passed, and until it was printed they could not properly discuss it. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would consent to

  405
  the formal stage being taken. It was in their own interest that the Bill should be printed and circulated. ["Hear, hear!" and Nationalist cries of "No!"]
  Mr. JOHN MORLEYsaid, the Government proposed to take only a formal stage of the Bill, and as they had promised that opportunity should be given for full discussion on the merits of the Bill on a subsequent stage, he thought their proposal was a reasonable one, and advised hon. Members to agree to it. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. DILLONsaid, that all sections of the Irish Party had abstained from taking any part in the general discussion of the Estimates, notwithstanding the strong views they entertained about them, as long as they saw that experts desired to speak; and yet, when an Irishman rose for the first time at the end of the Debate the other night, the Leader of the House at once moved the closure. [Nationalist cheer.] In those circumstances it was rather cool of the First Lord of the Treasury to expect that Irish Members were going out of their way to give the Government special facilities to get through their business, especially in relation to the Naval Works Bill and the Estimates. The Government had had full warning that the Irish Members objected to the proposed increase of expenditure under both the Naval Works Bill and the Estimates, and that they desired to explain the grounds of their objection. Moreover, he apprehended that according to the ruling of the Speaker, this would be the last occasion on which hon. Members would have the opportunity of discussing the general policy of the Government in relation to this great expenditure on the Navy. They might be able to discuss special matters on particular Votes, but not again matters of general naval policy as on this Vote. Therefore, he thought the request of the Government was unreasonable. The Irish people and the Irish Party were entirely opposed to this policy, and the Irish Members intended that the opinions of the people of Ireland should be fully and clearly stated on the matter. The Irish Members opposed the proposed increase of expenditure root and branch, and he claimed the adjournment of the Debate
  406
  in order that they might have the opportunity of giving their reasons for doing so.
  And, it being midnight, the Motion to report Progress lapsed without Question put.
  And the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  NAVAL WORKS [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
  Report thereupon deferred till Monday next.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Standing Committee on Trade, etc. [2nd March], further adjourned till Monday next.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

  TELEGRAPHS [ADVANCES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed:—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of a sum not exceeding £300,000, for the purposes of the Telegraph Acts, and to authorise the Treasury to borrow such sum by means of terminable annuities, payable out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  And, it being after Midnight, and Objection being taken to further proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

  BOYNE NAVIGATION TRANSFER BILL.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,)*THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY, Preston) moved the Second Reading of the Boyne Navigation Transfer Bill.
  DR. TANNERobjected.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, this was a Bill which involved a grant of £3,000 to Ireland for the purposes of the Boyne Navigation. It was a Bill that was introduced by the late Government, but, of course, if Irish Members did not want the £3,000, the Government had no alternative but to withdraw the Bill. [Cheers.] It would have to be passed before the end of this month, and if it was blocked night after night by Irish Members, he should certainly recommend the Treasury to withdraw it. ["Hear, hear!"]
  DR. TANNERsaid the only reason he objected to this Bill being brought on at this time of night was that right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench simply rose in their places and said they moved, and then occasionally they got some small instalment of information with regard to the merits of the Measure which might happen to be passed. For his own part, if this Bill met with the unanimous approval of hon. Members for Ireland who took an interest in these matters, he should be perfectly prepared to withdraw his objection.
  MR. T. O'CONNORsaid that as far as he had been able to gather the views of his hon. Friends, they were favourable to this Bill, and though he thought his hon. Friend was to be commended for his vigilance in watching these Bills, he would be glad if he would confine his vigilance to Bills that took money from
  408
  Ireland rather than to Bills which brought money to Ireland.
  MR. T. M. HEALYthought they ought to have some explanation of the objects of the Bill.
  MR. HANBURYsaid that, as he had already explained when he introduced the Bill, it was one which was brought in by the late Government. The Boyne Navigation was divided into two parts. The upper portion extending for about five miles was under the control of the River Boyne Company, and the lower portion of about 12 miles was in the hands of the Board of Works. Neither of these portions paid. The Boyne River Company just kept its head above water, but the Board of Works had been out of pocket between £100 and £200 a year for years. The Boyne River Company wanted to close their portion of the river, and the Board of Works, if they had regarded the matter from the pecuniary point of view alone, would not have been indisposed to close their portion also, as they were losing money by it. But it was considered unfair to the trade of the district that this should be done. An effort was accordingly made by a new company to find £5,000 on condition that the Government would find £3,000 in order to put the works into a thorough state of repair. An agreement was made by the late Government to that effect and this Bill was really to carry out that object and to transfer the undertaking to the new company.
  MR. SPEAKERput the question that the Bill should be read a second
  time but,——
  COLONEL LOCKWOODobjecting, its further consideration
  was deferred.

  BOYNE NAVIGATION TRANSFER BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [24th February], ''That Mr. James Bailey be a Member of the Select Committee."—(Sir William Walrond).
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKERput the question that ''Mr. Broadhurst be a Member of the Committee."
  DR. CLARKintimated that he had an Amendment to propose. In the recent short Session this Committee could not be appointed, because there was no Welsh Member upon it, and for some time they had to wait until the two Whips could agree. This Committee should be in a different position from any other Committee in that they should have experts, and Parties and nationalities should not be specially represented upon it. He suggested that the Government should take a couple of Gentlemen who were experts. There was one on the opposite side and one on that side of the House. If they had a big Committee divided into sub-Committees, when a complaint was made it was difficult to find the Members of these sub-Committees. The Gentlemen of the Press, for whom the Committee used to cater, got dissatisfied, and were now catered for more reasonably and efficiently by the Army and Navy Stores. A small Committee of experts such as he suggested would do the work much more efficiently and economically. If this were not done they would have to go back to the system of catering by a contractor.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman object to the name?
  DR. CLARK: To all the names except Mr. Curran and Lord Stanley.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The hon. Member has appealed to the Government. I must be understood as not venturing to speak for my colleagues, and to speak only as a Private Member. [''Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member has argued the matter on the ground of economy, but I cannot follow him in that argument. It is on behalf of Members who have to dine here, and not on behalf of
  410
  the public funds, that I would support what he has said. The hon. Member has suggested that in appointing a large Committee as we have hitherto done, we ought to have regard to Parties and nationalities. I can conceive that nationalities may desire to be represented in regard to their special dishes; but even preference of this kind, for which I have the highest respect, may be secured by proxy. It is hardly necessary that a large contingent of Scotchmen should be appointed in order that the menu may contain such items as cockaleekie and Scotch woodcock. [Laughter, and several Members, ''Haggis!"] We are all ready to accept as parts of our ordinary fare, Welsh rabbit and Irish stew. Although I have sympathy with the suggestion that nationalities shall be represented, I believe a better way can be found of securing the object aimed at; and I cannot see any need for the representation of Parties. I never heard of a Conservative as opposed to a Liberal or a Radical dish. [SEVERAL MEMBERS: ''Turtle!"] Surely turtle is above Party. Although a strong partisan, I could never accept or reject a dish on the ground that it was originally suggested by a different Party from that to which I belong. In my opinion, the interests of Members who are compelled to dine here frequently will be best served by a small Committee, and the House will recollect we have an old adage which says, ''Too many cooks spoil the broth.'' [Laughter and cheers.]
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Let me remind the House of a sound Constitutional practice, as distinct from the revolutionary doctrine just propounded, and it is that all Committees shall be largely representative. The idea of so small a body as three, with two for a quorum, on so important a subject as this, seems to me to be a departure from immemorial practice and Constitutional usage. From a national point of view I am tolerably neutral, because by birth I am an Englishman, my sympathies are largely Irish, and I have the honour to represent a Scotch constituency; therefore I am neutral, although not indifferent to national dishes; I think they are all good, but for my part I prefer French. [Great laughter.] Seriously, it is a new departure to commit the business to so

  411
  small a Committee, even although they are experts, as is proposed by my hon. Friend; and I do not know how far their expertness has been acquired in fields which would recommend the results to the sympathies of this House. However that may be, I think the House had better follow usage, and accept the Motion as it stands on the Paper.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished to call attention to the somewhat peculiar position occupied by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. The Motion was made by the Chief Whip of the Government, and presumably, therefore, on their behalf; and yet the Colonial Secretary supported the rejection of it. Again, the Committee proposed included a number of Gentlemen who for some time had discharged the duties to the satisfaction of the House; but the right hon. Gentleman, who never dined at the House, would dispense with their services; without any notice, the right hon. Gentleman asked the House to dismiss them from their position. This was unfair and disrespectful. One of the most important functions of the Committee was to taste the various brands of wine that were submitted for approval, and it was unfair to ask that three gentlemen should have to discharge such onerous duties. He would stand by the Government against the Secretary for the Colonies.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the Colonial Secretary had discussed the matter from all points of the compass except one, and there was one dish he had not mentioned, which was suprêmeà la Kriiger. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. R. F. Cavendish, Mr. Thomas Curran, Mr. Fellowes, General Goldsworthy, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Lafone, Mr. Llewellyn, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Macdona, Mr. Lloyd Morgan, and Lord Stanley, nominated other Members of the Committee.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Seventeen Members.
  Ordered, That Mr. Cochrane and Mr. William Redmond be added to the Committee.—(Sir William Walrond.)

  CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  VEHICLES (LIGHTS) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
  WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Select Committee [4th March] further adjourned till Tuesday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ELECTIONS) (No. 2) BILL.
  As amended, considered; Bill read 3a, and passed.
  PRISON-MADE GOODS IMPORTATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  LIVERPOOL COURT OF PASSAGE BILL.
  Committee deferred from Monday next till Tuesday next.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  On the Motion for the Adjournment of the House,
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: After the statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo that he desires to discuss the Naval Works Bill, I think it would be for the convenience of the House that I should not put that Bill down first on Monday. I shall, therefore, put it lower down. We shall put first the reference of the Light Railways Bill to the Grand Committee, the Military Manœuvres Bill next, and then proceed with the Debate that has been going on to-night.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock, till Monday next.